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 Delete. Shimeru 18:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mario Party 2 minigames (2nd nomination)[edit]

List of Mario Party 2 minigames (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Unsourced game guide content that is both listcruft and fancruft. While sources could be found I suppose: that doesn't change the fact that it's a game guide. Mini-games are basically the levels of the Mario Party games: Wikipedia isn't the place for level guides or mini-game guides. This is much better suited for a gaming wiki, or a wiki made by fans: known as a fan wiki.

• Here's a link to the previous AFD (which had a keep result, but it should be noted, there wasn't many comments or votes at all in it): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mario Party 2 minigames. RobJ1981 23:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 02:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Mario Party 2 (with or without merge). I don't get what is going on with these Mario Party afds... am I missing something? This is straightforward cruft. It belongs in an instruction booklet or a FAQ. This can NEVER be anything more than a list of basic gameplay descriptions of the mini-games. A really good editor might be able to reformat this into a gameplay section of Mario Party 2, but no, not as its own article. Normally I don't like deletion noms so close together like this, but in this case, it is definitely justified. --- RockMFR 05:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep: This article should have survived the last AFD. It can be encyclopedic and is verifiable and does not give "game guide" instructions. Also, please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fancruft. A consensus has been established there saying that Fancruft arguments in AfDs should be discounted. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 08:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no such consensus. There might be a consensus that votes such as "delete as cruft" are a bit lazy, but these are still valid opinions. --- RockMFR 15:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is. Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fancruft and look closely at the opinions of most editors that voted. If that's not a consensus, what is? Henchman 2000 18:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Excuse me for saying, but I am getting reeaaal tired of hearing this BS "can be encyclopedic" arguement when eeeeveryone knows that's not going to happen. Also, just because an article survives an AfD doesn't mean it's impossible for it to be deleted in another AfD; that's happened to thousands of articles and it's a useless argument. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 04:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy/Strong Keep: Why can't the nominator just accept these articles, and how many afds will they have to survive? It would be silly to delete a minority and keep the majority of these articles. Seeing as the majority of these articles are being kept, all of them should be kept. And did you get a new deletion reveiw for this article, if you didn't, I don't think this article should be being nominated again. Henchman 2000 08:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• We don't have to keep an article just because another similar article exists. I think anyone who believes that this article should be deleted would agree that all of the lists need to go. --- RockMFR 15:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Just for the record, Speedy Keep is only an option for an article that has either been nominated in obvious bad faith (which this hasn't) or an article where nobody is advocating deletion and the nominator has changed his mind.-Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Heh heh, some of the others have survived AfDs, but, oddly enough, they're gone.... ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 04:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Past AFD here. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, reads like a game guide. If someone wanted to add a brief description of the types of games to the Mario Party 2 article, or a discussion of changes in the games from the prior version, that would be acceptable. The lack of sourcing here is also problematic. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please elaborate on what you mean by "add a brief description of the types of games to the Mario Party 2 article or a discussion of changes in the games from a prior version"? Bowsy and I will do our best to find you some sources. Will that be OK? Henchman 2000 08:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean a one-paragraph summary of a couple sentences in length, saying something along these lines: "There are four basic categories of minigames: shooting games (7), fighting games (13), racing games (5), and matching games (9). The sliding block games from the first Mario Party were originally also included in the sequel, but were discontinued after they tested poorly in focus groups." (Note: That's not intended to be an accurate summary of the game; it's just an example of the sort of thing I'm talking about.) We don't need to know the name and level of every minigame, but a few general statements to place them within the context of the other Mario Party games (and video games as a whole) would be useful. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is what the prose in the main article is there for, this article is here for those people who want precise info, like me. Henchman 2000 17:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into other Mario Party minigame list articles - Instead of deleting all the lists of minigames in the Mario Party series, I think it would be best to merge all the games into ONE article, "List of Mario Party series minigames" or something to that effect, with sections for each. --Bishop2 19:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. One article or many: it's still cruft. RobJ1981 03:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Cruft" would not be factual information, so... not really. --Bishop2 12:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Cruft" is excessive amounts of information about a topic, not a term dealing with factuality. That these mini-games exist and that the article is factually accurate is not the issue here. The Kinslayer 12:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cruft is an abstract concept that is only used to get content that you WP:IDONTLIKEIT deleted. Also on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fancruft a consensus has been established that cruft votes of any description, not just fancruft, should be ignored. Henchman 2000 17:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only if they don't explain their reasoning. I mean, if someone simply said "Delete as cruft", then yes, that opinion shouldn't count as much as others. — Malcolm^{Use the schwartz!} 20:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Mario Party 2 - Per RockMFR. He echoes my thoughts exactly. The Kinslayer 08:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Game guide content, no less than a levels list. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A levels list would be a list of boards, not minigames. Henchman 2000 17:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you elaborate on how it's different? — Malcolm^{Use the schwartz!} 20:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, trivia. >Radiant< 08:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC) struck as asked on DRV. >Radiant< 07:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not acceptable encyclopedia content per WP:NOT. In addition to that, the "article" is unsourced, thereby failing WP:ATT. Picaroon 17:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with Picaroon. WP:NOT and WP:ATT. Adm58 22:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per other debates. Axem Titanium 22:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my arguements at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mario Party 3 minigames. — Malcolm^{Use the schwartz!} 23:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it up, delete it out! Per WP:ATT and WP:NOT! ...No one is gonna get that... ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 04:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge A game guide explains how to play the game. A short description is not a guide. Also, fancruft and listcruft aren't valid reasons for deletion. This can be rewritten or merged into the main game article. Lack of sources is an invalid reason if sources can indeed be found as nominator suggests. Mgm|^(talk) 10:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: If you keep posting these up for deletion -- at least give it a few days in between deletion notices. Read the last AfD -- i still believe in keeping this. MrMacMan 22:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is information directly relevant to the game, like any plot summary or list of features. It would be in Mario Party 2 but split for its size per WP:SUMMARY. Game-guide tone can be fixed. –Pomte 03:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • AGAIN - being directly relevant to a game does not make it notable. It's been determined that if a plot is present in a game, that it should be described in either a short summary or a long summary. At no point have mini-games been enforced as something that needs to be on Wikipedia. The only people that would care are people who played the game already. Same as how levels are removed, so are mini-games. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:43, 2 April 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.