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 keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comparison of massively multiplayer online role-playing games[edit]

Unencyclopedic list. WP is not a guide, or a price list. Additionally, any actual comparison between the games would likely be OR. GlassCobra 17:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Needs a rework, not a delete. Such a table is useful. Annamonckton (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep I know, someone is going to jump all over you for employing the u-word ("useful, alone, is not a valid reason for keeping"). However, this is sourced and does provide data on products of a large and growing industry. Mandsford (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Some people mistakes AfD for clean-up. If this article is not good, rework it. Zerokitsune (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a pricing guide. I can't think of a possible way that this page could be reworked in an encyclopedic fashion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Normally, I would support deletion. But I think it's an important topic, can all be cited, and encyclopedic. And yes, it's useful. seresin | wasn't he just...? 21:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep This article has potential and with time can probably become quite useful for a quick overview of MMORPGs. Perhaps I am also biased in this discussion because I created it. --Svip_pong 21:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 22:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic - Wikipedia is not a directory --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak keep If this exists, and continues to be updated without a problem (the author having noted themselves that such a list will be hard to maintain without diligence), I see no reason why a similar list about MMORPGs shouldn't stick around. The only problem I have is that games, by their nature, differ wildly - what is fun to one person will not be fun to another one, so they can't be directly compared. Forum software, on the other hand, can be easily classified by features, installation ease and method, price, etc. Like I said, weak keep, but it's going to be difficult to keep on top of this unless several editors are checking up on it. Duncan1800 (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Encyclopedias are used for research. This list provides a concise, sources comparison of MMORPGs. Fosnez (talk) 12:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep reasonably well sourced, the things that aren't sourced are not controversial, and to boot eh editors of this article have managed to avoid OR. Sethie (talk) 17:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[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.