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 all. - Mailer Diablo 15:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mario Party 3 minigames[edit]

And also List of Mario Party 4 minigames, List of Mario Party 5 minigames, List of Mario Party 6 minigames, List of Mario Party 7 minigames, List of Mario Party 8 minigames

Previous nomination, which was withdrawn, can be found here.

Trivia. Not encyclopedic. Unsourced. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. No actual improvement since previous AFD. >Radiant< 08:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: there is an emerging AfD standard for such articles. See recently closed List of Mario Party minigames at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mario Party minigames and List of Mario Party Advance minigames at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mario Party Advance minigames. All these "List of Mario Party * minigames" are of comparable quality, so AfD decisions should be portable. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 08:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The List of Mario Party minigames decision was entirely opinionated.Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 17:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 08:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this belongs on GameFAQs or somewhere, not in an encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep or merge to main articles: Not trivia, I will source it very soon, this isn't an unencyclopedic list, passes WP:NOT as it isn't game guide material, the list just goes on .....Henchman 2000 10:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As these articles are linked to a major CvG sereis, a merge would also be appropriate. Henchman 2000 18:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge them all into a Table of Mario Party games. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - A prose section in the main article using a combination of secondary sources and the primary source is more appropriate an encyclopedia-like. As it is, this is not useful for people who already know about the games and not useful for people who don't. This is fairly analogous to a plot summary and I believe the reasoning behind articles not being plot summaries is applicable to this as well. No improvement since at last AFD too. Wickethewok 14:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC

Wikiproject:Nintendo's aims, is to provide a comprehensive and detailed guide to Nintendo, which is what this list does. Henchman 2000 18:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, how are these lists not useful for people who don't know the minigames? Henchman 2000 08:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. A clear case of Wikipedia is not a game guide, as the other recent Mario Party AfDs have shown. Krimpet (talk/review) 14:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per precedent of the other Mario Party AfD's. I will reiterate my previous opinion that these are essentially unsourced game FAQs and do not warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia. Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 15:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look, you will find that only the LMP3mgs is unsourced, so WP:ATT is no reason for deletion. Henchman 2000 18:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all, not acceptable encyclopedia content per WP:NOT. In addition to that, the "articles" are unsourced, thereby failing WP:ATT. Picaroon 17:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See comment above. Henchman 2000 18:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: In no way is this trivia. Mario Party is about minigames over anything else. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 17:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per WP:NOT. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THis doesn't fail WP:NOT, also, you must show why you think it *can't* pass WP:NOT. Henchman 2000 18:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, one could interpret this as failing either WP:NOT#DIR and/or WP:NOT#INFO. Note that there are no hard and fast definition of NOT given, just examples and a rough definition. The purpose then of the AfD debate is to establish consensus as to whether an article passes guidelines - if a user feels that it violates WP:NOT there is nothing in the guidelines or policy that says the user must show why the article cannot pass inclusion criteria. Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 18:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a strong argument, then yes, you must. Henchman 2000 17:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Mini-game lists lack any merit and fail WP:NOT for being game guides. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And how do they do that? Henchman 2000 17:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all Fails WP:NOT and for the most part [[WP:ATT]. Listcruft. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cruft is no valid reason for deletion, and look carefully at almost every comment on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fancruft, there you will find that any delete vote of "cruft" of any description should be discounted and there is a consensus for this. Henchman 2000 17:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nomination. It's game guide content that is better suited for a gaming wiki. No list page for all of them is needed at Wikipedia either. RobJ1981 20:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. WP:NOT#IINFO seems very relevant here as noted by Radiant, Wikthewok, et al. The WP:ATT issue is subsidiary to this as better sourcing would not fix the core problem. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. These can never expand beyond basic gameplay descriptions or game guide material. I recommended redirecting at some of the other discussions, but upon further reflection that is not the best idea. --- RockMFR 20:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete All per all possible arguments. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 22:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per other debates. Axem Titanium 22:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Yes, I know in the past I've said I'd prefer to keep these lists. However, I have changed my mind there, seeing that this is unsourced and fails WP:NOT#INFO, as the nom stated. My main concern with these lists is: How are they encyclopedic? "Mario Party is more about minigames than anything else." Sure. But how does a list of them benfit the encylopedia? From List of Mario Party 3 minigames: "Eye Sore- Circle around a Mr. I to shrink it away. Avoid Podoboos." Is that somehow not game guide material? Every other MP minigame list has this problem as well, except that they have a more encylopedic tone. — Malcolm^{Use the schwartz!} 23:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • These articles are sourced. Henchman 2000 17:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • They don't directly source the minigames in question. Also, please remember formatting here, with asterisks (*). — Malcolm^{Use the schwartz!} 19:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all In what situation would this be of use to a user of an encyclopedia? That is how I read most of the WP:NOT guidelines. Slavlin 02:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THis benefits those that are looking for precise information, and an encyclopedia is supposed to give precise information, isn't it? And this is not indiscriminate as it is linked to a notable sereis. Henchman 2000 18:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If these articles cannot be kept, put them on my userspace Henchman 2000 17:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest you download them onto your hard drive if you want to keep them, we are not a web hosting service. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Other users are allowed to put deleted articles on their userspace, so why shouldn't I? Henchman 2000 18:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because the only purpose would be to recreate or to rehaul it, and neither would fly. People save content to improve the article over time (often to solve problems people have with the AfD). - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If they were put into my userspace, I would give them a massive cleanup and hopefully solve these problems and make them acceptable for all, I would want to show these articles to editors like yourself so that you could advise me on how to improve them further, or tell me if you thought they were acceptable. That would fly. 14:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
        • I would be really impressed if you managed to make the article both quality and not violations of WP:ATT and WP:NOT, considering doing so would entail destroying the article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I will manage to make it pass these articles and it won't destroy the articles, in fact, you could help if you wanted to. Henchman 2000 07:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. I think one page with a table of all the Mario Party mini-games from all the games should be kept. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Useight (talk • contribs).
• Merge all related articles into one A game guide explains how to play the game in detail, this isn't a game guide. Also not indiscriminate as they are clearly linked together by a notable game. If not merged into an article or list of its own, these could be cut down and merged into the game articles. At the very least there's some salvageable content in here. Mgm|^(talk) 10:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Notability is not defined by being associated with a notable thing. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. One massive list of Mario Party games is better than 7+. MrMacMan 22:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better, yes. Good enough, no. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please don't imply that your opinion is somehow better than mine since you didn't actually rebut my point with an actual policy or guideline. MrMacMan 08:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about one violation of WP:ATT and WP:NOT is better than seven, but still not within our inclusion policy? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT an INDISCRIMINATE collection of info but this isn't indiscriminate as it is on a notable subject. f it was random crap I could understandbut it's not. Also, they are NOT GAME GUIDES because a game3 guide gives THROUGH instructions with hints and tips. Oh, and the articles ARE sourced. Have you seen the "References" section yet? Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 10:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the lot of them. WP:NOT a game guide works well here, as well as no claim whatsoever to any sort of notability. Game guides would be a trivial work here. Remember the standard is that it has to have been the subject of multiple non-trivial works before it can be considered notable. -M^ask 20:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand, can you please simplify what you're saying about notability and why these articles don't qualify. Henchman 2000 07:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All The Mario Party series of games are indeed notable, but the individual games within Mario Party certainly are NOT. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 14:11, 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.