Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of video game websites (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. To delete, but a majority to keep. Also consensus that, if kept, it should be limited to notable sites and contain information beyond merely the names.  Sandstein  12:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of video game websites (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No clearly defined criteria for inclusion; this is an indiscriminate list. It mashes up game journalism outlets, digital storefronts, and even some general purpose websites that are only tangentially about games. It does not provide any substantial advantage over Category:Video game websites. The page was previously deleted for the same reason in 2006. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can put in table format and add more data, but I don't know what you guys want to do with it after that. SharkD  Talk  18:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#List_of_video_game_websites, this list provides no tangible benefits over the current function of Category:Video game websites (apart from collecting non-notable cruft). czar 19:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Axem and Czar. I'm fine with someone making up a draft for something with more use, but the current list is entirely useless. ~Mable (chat) 20:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete — I like the way the list looks now, but I do feel the indiscriminate nature is a big issue. I'd rather see something along the lines of "List of online gaming magazines" or "list of online game portals", which would be more useful than combining podcasts, database, digital distribution, etc, haphazardly like this. Currently, I do not see the use of putting Metacritic and Destructoid right next to eachother. Of course, for these suggested lists, clear inclusion criteria is still needed. ~Mable (chat) 10:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Maplestrip: It's a sortable list, so if you select on the arrows atop the list in the headers, you can sort it alphabetically. by date, etc. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know, that's why I'm so unsure. "Video game website" is just such an undefined thing. Is IMDb really a video game website? ~Mable (chat) 07:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Changed my stance to Neutral after reading the following discussion. ~Mable (chat) 17:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm over halfway done already with converting the page into a table and populating it with data. SharkD  Talk  20:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm done. I had to remove several items, such as links to game developers, redlinks, sites with insuffient data, etc. SharkD  Talk  21:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The issue with the list wasn't that it didn't have enough stuff but that its scope was indiscriminate—does it include all journalism sites, all Flash gaming sites, all sites that relate to gaming? Does a site relate to gaming for having a gaming section? In any event, we have categories that track whether being a video game website is a defining characteristic of the site, and the category will do a better job than we can hope to do with a list. czar 23:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The table can be sorted by the type of site. I didn't see any "general purpose" sites in the list. SharkD  Talk  23:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom and Czar, as well as the arguments used in the previous AfD 10 years ago. Category:Video game websites and similar categories are enough. Sure, this article makes for a mildly interesting Excel sheet, but the content's not very encyclopedic. What practical purpose does this list serve? Ordering the websites by launch date, Alexa rank, etc.? Is that *really* a useful thing for the typical gamer? I don't think so. Regardless, Wikipedia is not a web directory. Sorry. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it make a suitable project page? Anyway, if category intersections worked well, I would be all for just having the categories. SharkD  Talk  01:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Video game websites, "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative. Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." Also keep per WP:LISTPURP, as having useful navigational functionality. Lastly, keep per WP:HEY, per the significant improvements the article has realized in being converted to a table format that has been expanded with more content by SharkD. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTDUP says that duplication is, in itself, not cause for deletion. NOTDUP is not a deletion argument so "Qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP" is also not a deletion argument. Also no one said that duplication is the problem but that the category performs the function well while the list is indiscriminate and has scope issues. And the relative benefit of the new table columns in this context is arguable. czar 18:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As for being indiscriminate, I thought lists like these are supposed to be limited to non-redlinks, but that may not be the case. Regardless, it's no more indiscriminate (right now) than the category. SharkD  Talk  20:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if this is deleted, then that's the way it goes. NOTDUP has significant precedent in AfD discussions, is often cited as a valid reason for list articles to be retained, and has occurred for a great deal of time (e.g. see this search). Note that the page is useful as a navigational aid. For example, it received 2,816 page views in December 2015, whereas Category:Video game websites received 593 page views in December 2015. As such, the notion that the category is superior for Wikipedia's readers is not qualified by the numbers. Many readers don't use categories. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SharkD, the category is less indiscriminate because it categorizes websites that are only loosely related to video games in subcategories. It is rather silly to put Category:Video game music websites, Category:Video game news websites‎, and Category:Video game Internet forums‎ on the exact same level. This is why I suggested articles with a smaller scope: a List of video game fansites might make a fine article. ~Mable (chat) 22:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the table can be sorted. I suppose separate tables could be created for each website type as well. SharkD  Talk  23:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Video game websites are really common and adds a new type of cruft. The category works fine. There are plenty of video game websites. Too many to count, and none of them would need to be notable to make the list. Plus it would have the flaws of never being complete due to defunct sites and new ones coming up. If focused more I might agree to it. But it just looks like it's trying to do what category already does. Lucia Black (talk) 14:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete too much to maintain, does not offer anything over categories.--Vaypertrail (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The main problem with lists is that most of them take topics better covered by categories and provide no real reason of why they exist, thus being indiscriminate. That's the case with this list. --TL22 (talk) 02:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – The list would be much less indiscriminate, and also better organized, with the simple addition of sections to organize the content by type of site. However, it appears that this will likely may be deleted. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The list provides context that categories cannot. The article has been significantly improved since the AFD nomination. - hahnchen 22:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe there is additional info we can add to the article? I thought of maybe adding an "Awards" column, but felt that it would get too cluttered. Also, the Webby is the only award I'm familiar with. SharkD  Talk  23:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - I think that this is a reasonable list as long as 1) each entry is a stand alone blue link and clearly established (as to avoid stub articles created an hour ago to promote a site) and 2) we have a bit finer division between websites of print magazines, online sites, aggregateors, etc. and we stick to those divisions so that we are specifically talking about gaming press or potentially larger organizations (like ESA, and maybe MLG if they stay separate from Activision) and absolutely not fan sites (even if notable) or specific game/series sites. I do see the concerns this can be flooded with any VG website but I think rules can be put into place to avoid indiscrimination. --MASEM (t) 01:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep, if there is no clearly defnined criteria you improve it; not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Foreach n everyday (talk) 13:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Masem's comment really tells me that the only purpose for this is just a glorified category list. Per WP:STANDALONE. Lucia Black (talk) 13:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm curious - Masem's "keep" comment above influenced my stance towards "keep" myself. How exactly did what he said influence a "strong delete" stance for you? Sergecross73 msg me 16:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Masem's criteria in a nutshell is if the individual items in the list are notable. Which serves the same as category. If its there just to navigate through articles, then its best not to even have it. Lucia Black (talk) 16:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• What this list has potential for that cannot be done with a category while keeping to discriminate nature is to explain things like type of size, ownership, perhaps age, Alexa rating, defunct sites, etc. Lists and categories can co-exist, this is a prime example. --MASEM (t) 16:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Which is no big benefit if the criteria is that they are all notable. Lucia Black (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I think Masem's proposing more criteria than just being notable though. Also, WP:NOTDUP says that we're not really supposed to look at it like that though... Sergecross73 msg me 17:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Lucia you should strike one of your two votes. -- ferret (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, I'm saying that it should be more than just GNG-passing notability for the site to show that it is established, some history and understanding of how it fits into the VG industry. Further, it should a site that is not specific for any game or developer, but instead about the broad coverage of VG, so news sites, websites of print publications, key blog sites that we have as RS (eg like Destructoid or even Old Man Murray), key organizations, key conferences, key awards organizations, aggregators, etc. I feel this sufficiently makes inclusion discrete. --MASEM (t) 20:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• To add, taking from TL22's "delete" above, if we separate these by web site type, we can have a useful lead to explain that VG coverage is dominated by Internet-based sites, and explain the relative importance of each type of site, providing necessary context that categories can't do. --MASEM (t) 20:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Masem's suggestion, I really like. It creates exactly the kind of context I would like to see from such a list. ~Mable (chat) 21:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - as long as it stick's to Masem's/the standard criteria where only websites that have their own article are listed. I think "notable video game websites with their own article" is enough to steer clear of WP:INDISCRIMINATE itself, but I'm fine with stricter standards too if consensus leads us that way. Sergecross73 msg me 16:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per NorthAmerica, Masem and Sergecross. Especially in light of the efforts to expand the article into a table with details, rather than a straight up list of articles. -- ferret (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – The topic also meets WP:LISTN, part of Wikipedia's main Notability guideline page, having been "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Source examples include: , , , , , My keep !vote above stands. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.