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. The "delete" arguments are founded in policy and guidelines, the "keep" arguments boil down to variants of WP:ILIKEIT and WP:USEFUL, and specious arguments that the process isn't valid ("no reason given for deletion" when a reason was plainly stated at the top here, and "it was kept in the past" when consensus can change). >Radiant< 08:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mario Party minigames[edit]

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

This is a game guide article that is much better suited for a gaming/fan wiki. Explaining how to play each and every mini-game isn't a notable subject for Wikipedia. It should be noted: many of these Mario Party lists were in AFD about a month ago (with a result of no consensus). Since then: there has been little improvement to keep them looking like game guides/how to play guides. RobJ1981 03:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 03:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as Wikipedia is neither GameFAQs or a gaming wiki. Also, there aren't any sources or references in the article to verify any of the minigames.--TBCΦtalk? 03:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being unencyclopedic is not a reason to delete an article. you must show why you think the article *can't* be encyclopedic. Being unsourced is not a reason to delete an article. you must show why you think the article *can't* be sourced. McKay 19:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How will you fix the fact that level/mini-game lists don't warrant articles on Wikipedia? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • What? Who says level/mini-game/small organizations in books lists don't warrant articles on Wikipedia? McKay 14:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because a list of levels and list of mini-games is guide content? - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Can you show that by any reason besides "Delete as cruft"? McKay 16:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Oh yes, because being cruft isn't good enough. Hmm... Let's see... Besides the fact that it tells you how to beat the mini-games? Well, besides that very, very good reason to get this off of Wikipedia, I got nothing. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yes, being cruft is not good enough. Please take a read at the essay on WP:CRUFT. No policy there, just that some people think cruft should be removed. I'm merely stating that we should stick with policy, and not precedent. McKay 18:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • And how can you even argue that lists belong on Wikipedia when both Rayman RR and Monkey Ball Wii's were deleted for not belonging on Wikipedia? Only reason the MP lists survive is because of WP:ILIKEIT. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, personally, I don't like it, but that's not a reason, I'm fighting it, beacuse *I actually think that the article's existence is in accordance with wikipedia policy.
            • What policy suggests that we should have a list of levels or mini-games? There is a ton of precedence saying that we SHOULDN'T make articles like these. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • okay, I'll say it again. I believe this article should stay, because it is a notable topic that could contain encyclopedic information. Because the article can contain (potentially encyclopedic) information that doesn't fit in the main article. Also, precedence is more along the lines of WP:WAX and WP:ALLORNOTHING. Let's stick to policy, okay? McKay 17:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Did you even read the links you just gave? Those aren't policies. Those aren't even guidelines. They're essays created by Wikipedians. You've more or less agreed that the article in its current state is not encyclopedic. So how many reasons can you give to say that Mario Party deserves a million lists of mini-games teaching people how to beat the mini-games, but no other mini-game game can have one? - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • No, I don't believe that the article in it's current state should be nominated for FA status, but that doesn't mean that it should be deleted (see WP:POINT). I think that the article has potential to be a great article, if people will put some time into it. I've put more time into rebutting your concerns than fixing the article, and I've made it better. But there's still room for improvement. Yes, things from WP:ATA are essays. But they're good ideas. I think its funny that you're criticising me for quoting essays (after you did first from that page), when the effect of my statements is "lets stick to policy." McKay 18:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• No external verification of the information. No sources provided (and if they are, they should be external to the game itself). Content (methinks) would be better suited to a gaming-related wiki, a Mario-related wiki, or a Gamefaqs-type website. -- saberwyn 04:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being unencyclopedic is not a reason to delete an article. you must show why you think the article *can't* be encyclopedic. Furthermore, just because information is elsewhere doesn't mean it shouldn't be here. McKay 19:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment:I tried to find a source but there was none for any N64 games. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 13:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: There is no reason to delete these articles. Mario Party is a MINIGAMES GAME!! No-one wants to know about the story, only the minigames. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 09:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  You can't assume that no one wants to know about the story. –Llama man^talk_contribs 00:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply:Mario Party is about minigames more than anything else. So people will want to know about minigames over the story. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 09:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  This article isn't to further a point of "minigames are better than story", if someone wants an article on Mario Party story they're welcome to create one within the guidelines of WP:NOTE, and WP:RS... McKay 14:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Nominator has provided no reason for deletion. Information is to big to fit in normal articles for games. Nominator should post links to past AFDs. Non concensus is keep and as the nominator says, nothing has changed - so still keep.--Dacium 10:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It needs some clean-up, but it's a valid and worthy article. Mrmoocow 10:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide. — Krimpet (talk/review) 13:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being unencyclopedic is not a reason to delete an article. you must show why you think the article *can't* be encyclopedic McKay 19:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dacium --W.marsh 13:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A link to the prior AfD's would have been great, but all the same the concerns are still valid - this article is completely unsourced. This really is material more suited for a FAQ than an encyclopedia. Arkyan 15:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being unsourced is not a reason to delete an article. you must show why you think the article *can't* be sourced. McKay 19:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually the onus is on the contributing authors to source an article, not on me to prove that it can't. I quote directly from WP:ATT - The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material. Arkyan 06:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You should note that in accordance with WP:ATT, I added sources to the article. I wasn't meaning to say who has the burden, but what the question of burden is. You shouldn't even be saying "We must delete becuase it doesn't have sources", you should be saying "We must delete, becuase this is unsourceable" Which, now obiously can't be said, because I've added sources. McKay 14:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unencyclopedic list article that fails WP:NOT as a game guide and WP:ATT as having no sources to back its assertions. NeoFreak 17:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being unencyclopedic is not a reason to delete an article. you must show why you think the article *can't* be encyclopedic McKay 19:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: No reason to delete, lisrcruft is not a good argument. Henchman 2000 18:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep We have no reason to think that this article should be deleted. There has been some discussion as to whether this article (and the 8ish others like it) are encyclopedic or not. I'm sorry, but the policies regarding this are in favor of this article. The most common reason others have with regards to this article is Wikipdedia is not an indiscriminate source of information, it doesn't say that we shouldn't have listcruft like Minor Slytherins, but that if we're to have lists of things like this that it should be encyclopedic information. We use AFD not to say something isn't encyclopedic, but to say that something can't be encyclopedic. All of these Mario party minigame articles *can* be encyclopedic. so quit your complaining, and make it right. (yes, I was drawn here by a small canavs. I'ven't even played this game, so I don't think I'm the right person to fix this article, but I'll see what little I can do. You should probably do the same.) McKay 19:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, possibly merge? I've read the article, and I don't think it merits deletion. It does need some heavy clean-up and additional external links and sources, including limiting recommendations by the wiki-editor to the article reader, that's unencyclopedic. Consider merging the most important and notable info to the Mario Party article. - Mtmelendez ^{(TALK|UB|HOME)} 19:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to user McKay, wouldn't it be easier to just express your view of wiki-policies in one comment and vote, instead of responding to each editor's "delete" argument? - Mtmelendez ^{(TALK|UB|HOME)} 19:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did gather my thoughts in one place, but for gathering WP:CONSENSUS I think it's helpful to respond to the individual comments directly. McKay 20:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC) (As you can see, many of the individual contributors have defended their votes in different ways.[reply]

• Strongest delete ever. Why does this deserve an article more than "List of levels in Super Mario 64"? Give me a single good reason why it is necessary for there to be a list of mini-games on Wikipedia. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not going to say that there shouldn't be an article on the "list of levels in SM64". I think that if SM64s page got large and there were encyclopedic information to be place there (and I think there could be), then there should be an article on the list of levels in sm64. Why should there be a list of mini-games on wikipedia? Because there is potentially encyclopedic information about these levels. Like maybe what people think of certain video games, or which games make better drinking games, or awards, or novel uses of the controller to do things in strange ways, or which ones give you blisters. There's a bunch that could be written about these games, the hard part is finding the information that can be cited according to Wikipedia Policies. But there is definitely not a lack of "encyclopedic" information on the topics. McKay 21:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • • The subject - PERIOD - is not encyclopedic. SM64 doesn't have a list of levels because the FA determined that it should not have a list of levels in any way, shape, or form. And which mini-games are the best drinking games or which give you blisters the fastest are NOT encyclopedic subjects. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why do you say that games giving you blisters is unencyclopedic? McKay 14:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have to say it? I honestly have to say why I say that telling the readers which games give you blisters and which don't is unencyclopedic (and original research and POV for that matter)? - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, it is encyclopedic, and no, it's not OR or POV. (unless the BBC is now OR). McKay 16:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • The fact that games give people blisters belongs in the MAIN article. Are you going to find a source for each and every individual mini-game to say that it gives people blisters? - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • If we had information on which games gave people blisters, that would be something to add. Like I said before, all I was saying is that there is encyclopedic information on these games, and finding the information according to wikipedia policies is the hard part. I don't plan on being a major contributor to this article. I merely am trying to contribute to the consensus. I believe that the article can contain encyclopedic information. Which is what the AFD is all about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by mckaysalisbury (talk • contribs)
          • OOh, I found it! which games give blisters! McKay 17:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This can easily be described on a gaming wiki, but in my opinion people are just being difficult and demanding it must be here. It's cruft, plain and simple. As A Link to the Past has said: it's not encyclopedic, and is similar to articles on levels. Wikipedia isn't a place for game guides, and that's what the mini-game articles are. Even if they are purely just listing the games: it's still listcruft. Take Monkey Ball and Rayman as recent examples: both had list pages in AFD, that were deleted. Does anyone have the links for them? If those can be found, it's proof this type of content isn't wanted here (except by a few users). Also: these list pages stem from a major conflict at the talk page of Mario Party 8. The majority were against listing each and every game in the article: so a few users decided to just make these list pages with little to no consensus. I think the logic of "it's not wanted in an article itself, so branch it off to a list page" is a bit of bad faith. Users failing to understand the majority doesn't want it, is simply not helping Wikipedia. RobJ1981 22:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that that's a perfect reason, see WP:SIZE for more information. Please WP:AGF. McKay 18:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I say keep it. The article is not attempting to give advice for each of the minigames, as a game guide or GameFAQs would do, but instead is just informing about each of the minigames. There is no reason to delete it.
  • User has very few edits.
  • Also, there is a reason if no one can show that this list is necessary. Also, it's notoriously unsourced! - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: McKay has just sourced the article. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 09:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And yet, the article's importance still has not been defined. Is there a single reason why this content is necessary on Wikipedia, but SM64's levels aren't? - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because it is (or could be) information that people care about, that's too large and unweildy to put into the main article. McKay 16:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • People care about information on how to beat games, but we don't put that information on Wikipedia. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, I'll be more precise: Because it is (or could be) information that people care about that is is encyclopedic, conforms to WP:NOT, but is too large and unweildy to put into the main article. It is very hard to distinguish from the bajillion pages on the Internet which ones are actually Mario Party 1, because it's not officially called Mario Party 1, and "mario party" returns too many search results. McKay 16:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wikipedia doesn't exist to make your life easier. Its sole purpose is to be encyclopedic. Just because it's hard to find a list of Mario Party mini-games does NOT mean that it belongs on Wikipedia (and Hell, how is it hard? GameFAQs anyone?). - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I wasn't very clear before. I meant to say not that its hard to find this content, but it's hard to source the article with reliable sources. Sourcing Wikipedia articles is hard (particularly when there isn't a search term that doesn't include 9 sequels). And just because it's hard to source doesn't give us a reason to give up on the article. Writing an encyclopedia is hard work. We shouldn't give up on an article because it's hard work. McKay 16:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Articles get deleted if they can't be sourced. And I want it deleted because the content is of no worth. IT IS GUIDE CONTENT. For the love of God, what about that do you not understand? There is precedence to NOT have articles like this, there is absolutely NO precedence that suggests otherwise, and throughout this conversation, you've been waving around the "people like it" flag but never actually explaining why this is encyclopedic! Levels aren't encyclopedic, but a list of mini-games with a basic guide to explain how to beat them all are encyclopedic? - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yes, Articles get deleted if the can't be sourced. This AfD has shown that the article can be sourced. Precedent means nothing. Lets stick with policy. And I have been explaining why I think it's encyclopedic. and I have helped the article to make it more encyclopedic. Also, I've said before that there's nothing inherently unencyclopedic about levels. It's possible that the levels in SM64 were encyclopedic at it's AFD. That doesn't mean that all levels are unencyclopedic, or that minigames are unencyclopedic. McKay 18:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • So what policy do you use to defend this article's worth? What one says that the only game in the world that can have a list of levels/mini-games on Wikipedia is Mario Party? Seriously, I am sick of this. When will you explain to me why this article deserves to be on Wikipedia SO much more than List of (insert any game in the world) levels/mini-games? No other game series has such lists. NONE. Absolutely none. And yet, of course, for literally no reason whatsoever, THESE 8 mini-game lists are magically notable. There was no reasonable consensus over its creation, just a small group of people agreeing on it with no input from anyone else. Rayman RR's list of mini-games wasn't notable. Super Monkey Ball BB's list of mini-games wasn't notable. Explain to me why the List of MP mini-games is different. Explain to me why telling people the objective of every mini-game in the list is necessary. What encyclopedic value does this have? WHAT? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I HAVE ALREADY ANSWERED THIS QUESTION OF YOURS SEVERAL TIMES: Because articles have been written about them, because some of them gave rise to a class action lawsuit (which spawned several articles), also please refrain from using WP:WAX. Should we drop the article on U2 just because almost all of the other bands that formed that year are not notable? No, we independantly check to see whether U2 meets the criteria. Precedent means absolutely nothing. Let's stick to policy. I have shown the primary notability criterion, namely that several, independant, non-trivial articles have been written covering them. There is a different hypothesis different than the one you're proposing -- maybe all those other articles were deleted because no one actually considered policy, maybe no one cared enough to do any research on whether articles had been written about them, maybe they didn't actually have articles written covering them. Precedent means absolutely nothing. Attack the facts ma'am. McKay 21:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • When you haven't shown why this list of mini-games is particularly notable, or why it is necessary for it to be on Wikipedia, the fact that every other non-Mario mini-game list has been deleted from Wikipedia means EVERYTHING. If you can't show that it deserves to be on Wikipedia more than those deleted articles, under what argument do you vote keep? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                        • I have shown how it's better. On several occasions here, and on the articles page and on the articles talk page. Because articles have been written about them, because some of them gave rise to a class action lawsuit (which spawned several articles). Are you not reading these statements I keep placing on this page? I've said that it's encyclopedic. The minigames were notable enough to warrant a class-action lawsuit (and articles have been written about that lawsuit). Is this not enough for you. You seem to be ignoring this fact, over, and over, and over, and over, and over again. McKay 22:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                          • No, the design of a mini-game causing damage to peoples' hands and thusly resulting in a law suit does not make the mini-games notable. That's the silliest notion I've seen today, that because people sued over damage from playing certain mini-games warrants that a list of mini-games be made for them. Mario Party 8, 7, 6, 5, and 4, none of those have this problem. So why are they notable? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                            • First off, I would like to thank you for actually discussing the reasoning. You seemed to have missed that for the past dozenish posts. So, I think the information about the blisters is encyclopedic. In fact, you even seemed to imply that you supportted it with a caveat that has since been met. What would you qualify as encyclopedic information? Could you tell us why you think that it's silly? We hear about lawsuits about several other products, and those get put into wikipedia. Soemtimes the lawsuits themselves are enough to bring an entity to notability. Also, I merely presented blisters as one kind of information that could be encyclopedic. You challenged that one, so I showed an article, then you challenged how it didn't list the games specifically, so I found another source which did list the games individually, and you were silent on that issue for quite some time, now you're saying it's silly, and that seems to be a very subjective perspective, so I'd like more clarification. McKay 22:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                              • So hey, guess what? We don't make articles on Magnetix's individual pieces just because they got sued over them. Similarly, Mario Party is notable for getting Nintendo sued over it, not the content of it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                                • that's because there's nothing else to say about the pieces individually. Many of the minigames in MP have been mentioned in articles. Also, several of these minigames could be notable for other reasons, It's hard to come up with criteria for a game that I'ven't ever played, but in other minigames games, the minigames could be notable for being the first time two people shared a single controller, or maybe it's notable for being the first time a controller is used as a lasso. There's a bunch of thigns that could be said about these minigames. I don't think there's anything particularly notable about the levels in SM64, and people don't write about the levels much in articles, but because of the unique nature of minigames games, people talk about the minigames themselves a lot, particularly in a game review. Some of those mentionings might be trivial, but others won't be. McKay 22:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                                  • Suing over a game's content does not make the content notable. What about suing over Kadabra's swastika-like symbol? Or the scene that caused seizures in that Pokémon episode? MP is more notable for the lawsuit, not the mini-games. Also, Rayman and Monkey Ball's mini-games are mentioned in reviews and articles (Monkey Target, Monkey Bowling, Monkey Golf, Monkey Racing, etc.), so your argument of "getting mentioned in reviews and articles" doesn't hold water. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                                    • Just because no one brought up that point in the AfD doesn't mean it can't be used in this one. Hmm, you keep comparing this to other articles, I don't particularly like that, and I've expressed it on several occasions, so i'm going to do it because that seems to be how you think best. Can you tell me how the list of MP8 minigames is less notable than Minor Slytherins? AFAIK, most of them have trivial postings in other locations. What do they have that's so much better than these minigames? McKay 23:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                                      • You cannot use my argument for MP. See, the existence of an article does not necessarily dictate that the article is appropriate. However, the fact that articles that are no less worthy of being on Wikipedia were deleted says that these lists don't deserve to be on Wikipedia. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                                        • Important question: Do you think Minor Slytherins should be deleted? I know that that's not the issue at hand, but I need to know for the purposes of the argument. You're right, the fact that it's there doesn't mean it should be there, but we can't have an AfD resolved in time for this discussion (see also WP:POINT), so I'm willing to concede to your judgement on this matter and use it to continue the discussion. McKay 15:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                                          • It's more like an extremely unimportant, trivial, and irrelevant question. Minor Slytherins has nothing to do with this AfD whatsoever. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                                            • Let me be the judge of whether or not it's relevant. Could you please tell me whether you think that article should stay or go? McKay 16:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                                          • You are just seeking to make a WP:POINT by saying "if that article gets to stay, this one does too!". - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                                            • What‽ That's all you've been doing this whole time! You've been saying "Such and such an article has been deleted, so this one should too." I'll admit it's a horrible argument, but it's all you've been saying this entire conversation. McKay 16:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                                          • So far, you haven't shown this list's notability, necessity to exist, its encyclopedic nature, nothing. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                                            • No, I've asserted its WP:NOTE, by the primary notability criterion: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject." It's got those sources now. I've asserted it's potential to be encyclopedic by talking about the blisters and other potential topics, which you've yet to give any reason as to why they are non-encyclopedic. I have jumped through a bunch of hoops, meeting your every whim. McKay 16:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                                          • And yet you vote keep regardless. You, without any of those arguments to back you up, combined with the precedent to not have level or mini-game information on GameFAQs, do not have a leg to stand on. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                                            • What was that? You said that I don't have a leg to stand on? Yyou've even said yourself that you don't have a leg to stand on. Yesterday you said "Besides the fact that it tells you how to beat the mini-games? . . . I got nothing." Now that Bowsy has removed the advice on how to beat it you have nothing! McKay 16:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                                              • You're right. Because he got rid of the content, the fact that the general consensus has been "lists of mini-games/levels suck" ceases to exist. Fact: There is no need for this article besides "it's informative", which now that you removed the game guide information, it is no longer informative. Why is this the only list of mini-games in the entire universe that warrants an article? Rayman RR was deleted for good reason. Mario Party's mini-game list has no more merit than RRR or Monkey Ball Wii's. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                                                • Comment below as it's the same question McKay 19:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've looked over the article, and I fail to see how this cannot be seen as guide content. The descriptions tell you how to win the mini-game and how to play it. AKA - it's GUIDING you. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Mini-games in Mario Party are basically levels. We don't have level guides here, I don't see why mini-games should be made an exception. Sourcing is fine and all: but that doesn't fix how unencyclopedic it is. As I stated before: other mini-game lists were deleted in AFD, Mario Party shouldn't be an exception either. Just because it's probably the most known mini-games: doesn't mean it should be kept over Rayman game and/or Super Monkey Ball game lists. RobJ1981 21:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, Game Guides aren't allowed, so it can be reasonably assumed level guides aren't allowed. Game Lists are allowed, though there isn't any policy saying they can exist. So level lists? There isn't any policy about that. So the article should stay, and we should watch to make sure the guide content stays off. McKay 21:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So game guides aren't allowed. And just because there is no policy saying "list of levels in video games are bad, mkay?" does not mean that they belong on Wikipedia. Are you saying that because it's not explicitly stated that I can't make an article about flying purple rocks with hats on, that it doesn't violate any guidelines? What is the purpose of this article? Why is this list of mini-games notable to Wikipedia? Also, the reason why Rayman and Monkey Ball failed the AfD was not that it was particularly less notable than other mini-game compilations, but because it is a mini-game list. Why is this mini-game list more than just any mini-game list? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is correct, just because there isn't policy saying that a type of page isn't allowed, doesn't mean it should be allowed. Also, Just because there isn't policy saying that a type of page is allowed doesn't mean that it isn't. We need to evaluate the article based on it's own merits in accordance with wikipedia policy, which is what this discussion is all about. Also, I would say that the RRR list was not removed just because it is a minigame list. Also, I'd say that it didn't get the "fair" treatment that this one is getting. And the monkey ball one? It died from a prod. I'm going to claim that they never really had their time in court. Don't claim that mini-games lists are inherently non-notable. I don't think there's any evidence to support that. McKay 15:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The lack of any evidence or any argument that mini-game lists in general belong on Wikipedia does say that the list should go. Tell me, why does this list belong on Wikipedia? - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've provided evidence in the form of the primary notability criterion. I say that it should be here, and I've met that criterion, it is up to the deleteists to come up with the reasons for deletion. McKay 16:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikipedia is not a game guide. Except for the bits about the lawsuit, the entire list consists of original research; it provides analysis and interpretation of facts based upon the writer's first-hand observations. The content policies apply to lists as much as they do to any other page in the main namespace. --Slowking Man 21:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, this may be true, but it can change. Feel free to tag it with an OR template if you wish. McKay 21:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• COMMENT TO USERS McKay and A Link to the Past: Although your thoughts and arguments are appreciated in these discussions, your persistence to express your views are becoming disruptive. Please just let other users express their opinions on keeping or deleting the article and let the majority rule. - Mtmelendez ^{(TALK|UB|HOME)} 22:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the majority shouldn't rule; voting is evil. Instead, consensus will be determined. –Llama man^talk_contribs 22:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beat me to it. Also, superior reasoning is another factor. This is a discussion, not a poll. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I was just suggesting a resolve to this dispute. Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "majority". I'm sorry, but I don't think dozens of posts from one or two users to express a certain point of view is superior to the good-faith opinion of various editors. I don't think that's how you reach consensus. - Mtmelendez ^{(TALK|UB|HOME)} 23:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that LttP and I are possibly getting somewhere. We're probably not going to reach an agreement, but I think we're understanding each other better. There is a truth, and we're trying to reach it. McKay 23:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was hoping for. Sorry about the previous comments. - Mtmelendez ^{(TALK|UB|HOME)} 23:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete game guide information, fails WP:NOT. Hbdragon88 04:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • now that the game guide information has been removed, do you have any other comments? McKay 16:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Show me your reasoning why precedence doesn't matter. If you have anything to show that this list of mini-games is somehow more notable than all other lists of mini-games or lists of levels, I want to see. Show me the necessity of this article. And no, saying "WELL I AWREADY SED IT" doesn't count. You can either explain to me why this article is notable and necessary or stop saying it is. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm, I'm having a hard time fully understanding your arguments, so I'm requesting clarification. Is this article absolutely necessary? No. Is the article on Minor Slytherins necessary? No, is the article on Codd's 12 rules necessary? No. But an Encyclopedia is "a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge." "As a general encyclopedia, Wikipedia seeks to describe as wide a range of topics as possible." so while an article on the effects of salt on slugs, or an article about me might not be strictly necessary it might be desired to have such articles. But Wikipedia can't police information about everything under the sun, so wikipedia has established a few core guidelines, namely that of WP:VERIFY, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. The first two are what's being discussed here, and are neatly covered in WP:NOTE. We don't add an article about something (like me for example), unless a couple of WP:RS have written something on the subject. This criterion has been met. If you (or anyone) still have (or has) a problem with this article meeting this criterion, please respond here. McKay 19:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, wikipedia has the guidelines contained in WP:NOT. Here is the real concern. Some have said that this list is an Indiscriminate collection of information. It's the original concern that RobJ mentioned, specifically that little has been done to fix the article. Since the listing of the AfD, Bowsy has cleaned out the "Instruction Manual" portion of the article. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Mario_Party_minigames&diff=prev&oldid=117071182 You yourself, aLttP, have mentioned that the article no longer has a problem with this criterion. If you (or anyone else) would like to bring up this potentially-valid concern again, please respond here. McKay 19:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • In that last post of aLttP's, he mentioned another concern, I'm not quite sure how to quantify it, you say "it's informative" (you say it's the only reason, but I've brought up others, like "notable", and "encyclopedic") but I fail to see how this has anything to do with policy. Maybe I'm not understanding something, so if you have something else to bring up. Feel free to note it here. McKay 19:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You also keep bringing up the other articles that have been deleted. WP:WAX. What makes this one different? Well, I think it's got encyclopedic content. I think it's got reliable sources, I think the information is at least partially verifiable. Sure, there's some work that could be done in all three areas, but I think it's better in those areas than those articles that got deleted. I keep saying that precedent shouldn't be used, namely because I think this article may be different (it's hard to say that that's the case, because if the articles are deleted, I can't see what they're like). Please, give me the benefit of the doubt. Assume this article is different somehow. And Evaluate, on it's own merits which wikipedia policy warrants its deletion. If you still have other concerns with regards to WP:WAX and precedent. Please, bring them up here. McKay 19:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some, if it was unnecessary, it would be rated as stub class, but, in both WPNintendo and WPCvG it is start class. Henchman 2000 19:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean it's necessary; heck, I could write a list of references to Chuck Norris, and it wouldn't be a stub, but it wouldn't be necessary. –Llama man^talk_contribs 19:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Just because you think it has encyclopedic content does not mean that it has encyclopedic content. The fact of the matter is that Rayman RR and Monkey Ball's mini-games have more substance than Mario Party's, yet still failed to continue to exist. If you wish, make a deletion review for them. If they come back, MP can stay. If not, MP goes. MP is no more notable than them. Also, I can use the precedence argument for deleting - you cannot use it for keeping. The fact that no other game series has a mini-game list and the ones that did were deleted is usable. The fact that another article exists with questionable notability is not. You're comparing a list of minor characters from Harry Potter to a list of mini-games in Mario Party. The fact is that those Slytherins are probably more notable than these mini-games since there IS precedence to have list of characters. If it's there, it either deserves to be or it has yet to be put on the slate for deletion. Being on Wikipedia is very different from deserving to be on Wikipedia. Your comparison of a list of minor characters that spans an entire franchise to a list of mini-games in a single game is apples and oranges, but my comparison is of two like-minded articles. So why is this a notable mini-game list? - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you think the article doesn't have encyclopedic content, you're going to have to attack that point directly, saying that my thinking it's encyclopedic doesn't make it so, isn't an argument against it. I don't think a Deletion Review is necessary, because policy was kept, but that participation seemed partisan, and there's nothing that happened wrong from an administrative perspective (unless WP:CANVASing can be shown, but that might prove difficult). It appears as if almost your entire argument is based on precedent (You keep saying "unencyclopedic" but haven't mentioned why since I've shown it's encyclopedicness). If we go off of precedent, Disavian has shown that 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 have all survived an AFD. Some more than once. Precedence clearly shows that these articles should stay. McKay 15:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, that shows that MP fanboys are too vast. Oh, and it's funny that you seem to expect me to argue why it's not encyclopedic (such as levels and mini-games list being guide content), but you won't answer why it is besides "Omg, if Minor Slytherins gets an article so does Mario Party mini-game lists!". - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you think that MP Fanboys have overwhelmed the discussion with worthless content, maybe you should open up a deletion review. With regards to encyclopedic content, I have answered that, I mentioned that Bowsy cleaned up the article and removed guide content. A list of something doesn't a guide make. Obviously that's the case, because a list of minor slytherins is not a guide. So, you'll have to tell us why you think that the article is non-encylopedic. Why you think it's an indiscriminant collection of information (and that it can't be cleaned up). I think it's clear that there is at least some encyclopedic content on the page, the blister stuff is notable enough. I have several arguements for the article. But note that it's your responsibility as the person voting for delete to bring up the issues, and my responsibility to say, "yes it's notable because it has sources, yes it is encyclopedic because it has information about the games involved in the blister lawsuit." You say I've only got one argument? Yes, I brought up the minor slytherins issue after you brought up the RRRmg. I've also brought up that the content is notable. I've also brought up that the content is encyclopedic. If you would like to explain why you think I'm mistaken, please feel free to do so, but you haven't brought up anything besides saying "game lists are guide content BBQ!" and I've said that they aren't inherently so, and that you must show me why game lists are inherently guide content, and you haven't done that. McKay 17:08, 23 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 2 minigames (result was keep)
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mario Party 3 minigames (also nominated: 4, 5; result was nomination withdrawn)
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mario Party 8 minigames (also nominated: 6, 7; result was no consensus)
4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mario Party Advance minigames (ongoing)

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

• Strong Keep The "games" topic is notable; should be expanded and backed up with strong and reliable information / sources. This topic deserves representation in any encyclopedia. We have an obligation to provide the world with current reliable, and verifiable information. ErgoEgo 02:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC) (note, this contributor is 8 days old and has 6 edits, none of which are in the article namespace)[reply]

• Keep as this is a useful list fit for an electronic encyclopedia. I see nothing that strikes me as "game guide" material here, and we can quickly remove it should it ever creep in. Burntsauce 17:57, 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 21:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmm, If you think that the information is Game Guide materaial, please tell us why. We have provided sources to the page, and these games meet the primary WP:N guideline, namely that there are several independant sources which reference the minigames non-trivially. If you have further complaints, please list them. McKay 22:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • • If you think that counts as "improving the article", you are sorely mistaken. Unfortunately, this is a deletion debate and the burden of proof is on you to show that the article is not game guide material, which is certainly what it seems to be (and is). Axem Titanium 04:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per practically everyone's delete arguments. No one has improved this article in a month, so, from what I see, all these "the article can be encyclopedic" is lookin' like a load of BS. I'd really love to see this apparently nonexistence encyclopedic version of this article. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 02:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The article has been improved, and if you think that the article is non-encyclopedic, could you please tell us why you think that way so that we can fix it? Or be WP:BOLD and fix it yourself. McKay 07:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Alright, it appears I should rephrase my statement: the article cannot be encyclopedic. It's never going to be anything more than a crufty-looking list that will only benefit Mario Party fans. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 23:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment 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} ♣ 03:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, I think you should read WP:CONSENSUS again. I think consensus is gradually formingin the way of keep.
    • I think you should realize that this will, more than likely, be nominated again, which is what I said in that above statement; regardless of how it's kept, it will be nominated again, and again, and again.... ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 17:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • So yeah, I figure that even if it gets several dozen keep results from AfDs, it will probably be nominated again, because people think that listcruft in all forms should be burninated. Sadly, I think such AfDs are a waste of Wikipedia's resources, but yes, I realize that an AfD will happen again. But that doesn't make it right. McKay 18:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's right: it doesn't make it right; what I'm suggesting is maybe there should be a way of going about this that will decide once and for all whether this should exist of or not, preventing thousands of AfDs. To tell you the truth, I don't care whether or not it gets deleted or not anymore; I just want this resolved. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 21:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. This discussion is going nowhere because of the repetitive arguments of basically two users, and its been like this for 3-4 days. - Mtmelendez ^{(TALK|UB|HOME)} 00:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 20:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I agree, something needs to be in place, otherwise all the list pages need to be re-nominated and deleted. If people think it's encyclopedic: then fix it already. But the issue is: it can't be encyclopedic, and it's just people wanting it because they like it. As I stated before: mini-games are basically levels of the Mario Party games. Wikipedia should never become a level guide. It isn't one now, and MP lists shouldn't be the start of major fancruft level guides. Let's look at the possibilities, shall we? 1: A plain and simple list of the games = fan/listcruft. 2: a list of the games, with descriptions = still fan/listcruft. 3: a list of the games and how to play them = listcruft/game guide. What else is there? Sourcing the article doesn't change it from being listcruft, fancruft and/or a guide. I don't understand why people can't understand Wikipedia isn't a video game guide. There is gaming wikis, yet people refuse to use them in this case. RobJ1981 08:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who says listcruft is a reason to remove an article? There isn't any wikipedia policy that says that listcruft should be removed. I think that we should keep the game guide information off the page, but there's nothing wrong with the list of games. McKay 16:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So just a plain, useless list that only lists the names of the minigames should exist? Plainly put, I'm not diggin' it. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 17:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry, but if you'd look at the article, you'd see that there is more encyclopedic information on the page than just the list of the games. But really, note that there isn't a policy in wikipedia that says that lists shouldn't exist. In fact, there's a guideline page on lists just like this one. McKay 18:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Theory of the article as a listing of minigames is overly specific and not encyclopedic in any form. Captain panda In vino veritas 13:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  could you please tell me what's unencyclopedic about the article? McKay 16:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Mario Party (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, but no, not as its own article. --- RockMFR 15:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, I ask, "What's wrong with cruft"? Lists are all over wikipedia. We should try to keep the game guide information off the article, but that's a seperate issue entirely. McKay 16:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: there are many minigames that can be classified under this list as the Mario Party has extended into quite a long series. --Valley2city^₪‽ 17:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Note that this article covers just the minigames from Mario Party (1). Each of the other mario party games has their own section. McKay 17:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This is game guide material. It may not explain exactly how to play them, but it's no different than listing levels. At the very most, there should only be one "List of reccurring Mario Party minigames" (and that's still pushing it). I don't see any defense for this besides the usual "I like it", "It can be improved (yet five months later it's the same)", "There's nothing saying this can't be here (when most of the guide lines and policies are against it), and all of the other pointless arguments. It's sad that this will default to keep. Nemu 21:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In regard to your second point, I wish to note that the article has undergone non-trivial improvement (see diff) since this AFD was started. -- Black Falcon 00:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally, I would classify that as trivial. It's about the level of a minor clean up. And is it going to be improved past that? Just because people want to save it from this AfD doesn't mean they'll actually touch it after. Nemu 00:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I suppose it's a matter of perception; that's why I chose to write "non-trivial improvement" rather than "substantial improvement". My main reason for arguing that it constituted a non-trivial improvement is due to the addition of references, which were previously wholly absent. In any case, as long as you are/were aware that there had been changes, the issue is moot. Cheers, Black Falcon 00:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's ludicrous to keep this stuff when serious articles with proper refs get deleted! NBeale 06:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT a game guide. Though actual game-guide suggestions have been removed, this is still a game guide: "the player can ...", "the player must ...". A few instances in a broader article would be OK, but this is not that. -- Black Falcon 06:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can I improve this article to remove "game guide" content? 08:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I could suggest three things offhand. First, rename the title to "Mario Party minigames". Second, add more prose covering the types of minigames, the lawsuit, and any other relevant topics for which there are sources. Third, remove anything that isn't purely descriptive. I will try to the third now; if I succeed, it will invalidate my WP:NOT argument. In any case, I have stricken my recommendation to delete as I believe userfying to an interested editor may be more appropriate in this case. -- Black Falcon 17:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I have added two paragraphs of prose that provide details on the minigames and the lawsuit (see diff). I think this is enough to justify retention of the article. Any additional changes/trimming is an editorial issue that can be performed in place of deletion. -- Black Falcon 17:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though I will admit, it makes it look a bit better, I still don't feel this asserts its existence. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 22:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to be clear, I'm not opposed to a merge of the two articles. I am just hesitant to perform it myself given the seeming lack of consensus on this page and my complete lack of knowledge about Mario Party beyond what's in this article and what I gleaned from skimming a few sources. -- Black Falcon 00:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I still don't feel that the lawsuit information is relevant to this list. Only the article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to the closing admin. A substantial number of recommendations by editors were made on prior versions of this article. Almost everyone has commented on this version, which has been superceded by this version. Please take that into consideration when evaluating the discussion. Thank you, Black Falcon 17:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• My opinion to redirect still stands. The only meaningful change is the inclusion of the bit about the lawsuit. This is already in the main article and anything that is different in this version can be merged to the main article. --- RockMFR 19:17, 27 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.