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 Consensus to delete per WP:ATT and WP:NOT. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mario Party Advance minigames (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Game guide content that is both listcruft and fancruft. Take it to a fan wiki of some sort. RobJ1981 23:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The deletion listing is not well thought out by the nominator, neither "listcruft" or "fancraft" is a suitable reason for deletion. They are not even real words, but instead merely words thrown about by people when they want to delete something they personally don't want. Mathmo ^Talk 23:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but game guide information, which is something the nominator pointed out, does not belong in Wikipedia, which is what this is really looking like, and I'm really considering changing my vote right about now. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 16:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This is NOT game guide information, a game guide tells you : How to win, what the controls are, advice and lots more, and , if you look at the article, you will find that it doesn't tell you anything mentioned above. So it clearly isn't unencyclopedic. Henchman 2000 19:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I just don't see how this sort of list is useful in an encylcopaedia - if you want to see this kind of detailed information, go to a fansite. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 00:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Fancruft and listcruft are no reason to delete an article. Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fancruft, there you will find that many editors feel that fancruft is no reason to delete articles, and consensus has been established in support of this. If you want it to become encyclopedic, which you probably do, then edit it and turn it into a good article, just like Bowsy has done with many other lists. Henchman 2000 19:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The same information can be on multiple site you know. Henchman 2000 09:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The AfD doesn't hit any reason for deletion, but this should've been a category at least, and doesn't meet WP:ATT at all, and appears to be merely a list of unencyclopedic information. EliminatorJR ^Talk 00:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This information is probably better suited to article format as it would be hard to make it a category. Oh, and thinking it should be a category isn't a good reason to vote Delete. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 09:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed, but that was just a comment, the lack of attributality and encyclopedic nature is the problem EliminatorJR ^Talk 00:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the other Mario Party minigame lists have been nominated for deletion at some point. I suggest that AfD participants consider the following:

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mario Party minigames (ongoing)
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mario Party 2 minigames (result was keep)
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mario Party 3 minigames (also nominated: 4, 5; result was nomination withdrawn)
4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mario Party 8 minigames (also nominated: 6, 7; result was no consensus)

My reccomendation is that they all be nominated for deletion at once, because they're virtually identical in terms of content. If they're kept, they're all kept. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep To tell you the truth, I really don't support the existence of this article, mainly because it's totally consisting of lists and missing sources, like most of the other articles are, but, I mean, the others have survived AfD's, one way or another, but, if sources aren't and can't be found, I'll change my vote. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 03:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Sources shouldn't determine an article's fate or not. You can find sources for just about anything: it doesn't make it notable for Wikipedia. This is clearly fancruft that belongs on a fan wiki. Mini-games in Mario Party are basically it's levels, level guides aren't notable article subjects here. Also I want to point out the AFD result for Mario Party 3 was nomination withdrawn, not keep. RobJ1981 04:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My bad, I'll fix that. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Entirely unencyclopedic. --- RockMFR 05:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per RockMFR. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 06:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Entirely unencycopedic, what are you talking about?! Of all the lists, I would say this one was the 2nd most encyclopedic. (the most encyclopedic being Mario Party 8's list.) Henchman 2000 09:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongest Keep Ever: This is not unencyclopedic, and any unencyclopedic parts can VERY EASILY be made encyclopedic. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 09:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongest Keep In the Universe!: Per Bowsy, taking to a fan wiki, if there was one, would be inappropriate. It's nothing to do with "fans". Just because it is on another site doesn't mean it can't be here, something the nominator clearly fails to understand. Henchman 2000 09:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've noticed that this "the article can become encyclopedic" argument was used in other AfDs, and I've also noticed that some of these articles are still unencyclopedic lists, and I've ALSO noticed a few WP:ILIKEIT arguments, that is, no one has presented any good support for why this needs to exist. I'm not saying it can't, but I'm just noting it hasn't, and if it really can't be supported, I may just change my vote. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 16:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Screw this; I support the deletion of this article, if it can't be changed into an article that both asserts its existence and becomes encyclopedic. But, until then, with the support of WP:EMBED, WP:FAN, and WP:LC (with the argument of being non-notable, first and foremost), I feel this article should be deleted. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 16:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, not WP:EMBED; I was thinking of another guideline. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 16:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, it is game guide material, completely unattributable (since no professional journal/news source would ever write individually about each minigame) and the minigames themselves are not notable outside of Mario Party. There. I've cited two policies and a guideline. Axem Titanium 21:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: A game guide would tel you how to play the game ie. controls and give tips. Also, it has been sourced and tere are probably plenty more sources where the current ones came from. There. I've cited how the policies you mentioned do not make it so the article should be deleted. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 12:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. When I said fan wiki: I meant a gaming wiki of some sort. This is certainly fancruft that is suitable for a gaming wiki (made by FANS, hench the name: fan wiki). RobJ1981 08:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Theory of article is unencyclopedic and should be deleted. Captain panda In vino veritas 13:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Being unencyclopedic is not a reason to delete an article. you must show why you think the article can't be encyclopedic. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 08:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This seems pretty analagous to a plot summary, which WP is explicitly not. There really isn't any real world reference for this list of mini-games from a single game. Wickethewok 01:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to all users saying "there is no source" as a deletion reason: I am about to add a source, so now it is attributed to a reliable source and you have no reason for a delete vote. Henchman 2000 17:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Sources don't just automatically make things safe from being deleted. Sources don't fix the cruft issue. An answers.com link isn't helpful: it's explaining the game itself (no mini-games are mentioned except for the fact there is 60). Also people mentioning sources, clearly mean somewhere not from Nintendo or an official site (if I'm understanding this right). Answers.com would've worked: if it actually listed the mini-games, but it doesn't. Throwing in any link to save the article isn't going to work. RobJ1981 19:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I posted this in another AfD, and I will post it here, verbatim: It's looking pretty obvious that this is gonna be a "no consensus" ruling and, seeing as this is probably going to be nominated again, I feel we need to set up some sort of proposal, something along the lines of "if it can't be improved after a certain amount of time to a better quality, then delete," because this is going to be ridiculous. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 21:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be better than this, but I don't think it would be accepted by all. Henchman 2000 12:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will write what I wrote on the other AFD: Strongly disagree. At worst, repeat AFDs are an annoyance. However, there is no need to set an arbitrary deadline for the improvement and/or completion of articles. I can understand the frustration (on both sides) of having AFD after AFD, but if there's no consensus, then there's no consensus. Creating a policy to override consensus (or lack thereof) won't help. -- Black Falcon 20:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What I was suggesting is some way of preventing thousands of unnecessary AfDs. I'm sure, for such a case as this, that something along, but not constricted to, the lines of what I suggested. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 21:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The best way to stop unnecessary AFDs is to discourage frequent renominations that only repeat what had been noted in previous AFDs. Someone may think that a view s(he) holds fully justifies the deletion of an article, but if there is not consensus support for that view, s(he) should back off rather than repeatedly AFD the same article. A deadline is counter to the very nature of Wikipedia. On whom would we impose it ... editors who contribute to the project voluntarily? The best way to avoid thousands of unnecessary AFDs is simply to not renominate articles for deletion unless a significant amount of time has passed, valid arguments grounded in policy were overlooked in prior AFDs (deletion review may be the better option here), and/or one has gained support for a nomination on the article's talk page. -- Black Falcon 23:51, 26 March 2007 (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.