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 of the debate was keep and verify. King of♥♦♣♠ 21:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
List of PlayStation games incompatible with PlayStation 2[edit]
Original research, and not very encyclopaedic even if it is verifiable Jammo (SM247) 00:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if verifiable I could see this being a quite useful list. --SeizureDog 01:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep OR? Maybe slightly, but the undeniable factuality and usefulness outweighs that. Adambiswanger1 01:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep per verifibility issues, otherwise Delete. --Arnzy (whats up?) 01:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have plenty of other video-game related lists. (This said with the assumption that all info will be verifiable)--SomeStranger(t|c) 01:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this is reasonably encyclopedic. Verifiability shouldn't be a problem. SubSeven 01:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have zero interest in this kind of thing, but that's not the point. It's a stub with too much of just listing, but it is an honest attempt to start an article that very many people will be interested in. Interlingua 03:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this has the potential to be a useful list. Any info on it should be verifiable. --Coredesat 03:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above Cyclone49 04:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, have played Syphon Filter 2, 3 with no difficulty on my pre-2005 Playstation.--Dakota ~ 04:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is game is only incompatible with SCPH-75001 your model maybe is SCPH-70001--Ragnarok Addict 14:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have one purchased 2002, one purchased 2004, don't know their version numbers but both play all Syphon Filters, but did have trouble with GTA Vice City.--Dakota ~ 16:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Crystal ball-speculation on future utility of article. Note already one apparent case where the article is wrong, above. If verifiability is "no problem", suggest getting the homework done before spewing unready article on WP. Tychocat 08:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Do we really think that Britannica would have something like this? Non-encyclopaedic. Moreschi 09:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep if verifiable. - Nick C 11:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The list itself is a good idea, but the items on this list are impossible to verify aside from self-experimentation, and even there some disagreement will take place (my copy of Final Fantasy Anthology works fine on my PS2, for example). Only a list from Sony itself could really verify it, and if that list does exist, there's no real need for this article. --UsaSatsui 13:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The list is based on official website consumer alerts [1][2]. --Ragnarok Addict 14:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So if the list is there, and the article can never really be expanded past that list, why do we need it here? Wouldn't a link from Playstation 2 be enough? Oh, those sources should probably be put into the article too, if it's kept. --UsaSatsui 09:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep only if it's verifiable, other wise delete.--Andeh 15:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. A tad bit crufty, but it is at least pragmatic. It might eventually be dealt with via a transwiki or a deletion, but it seems mildly not harmful to the project for now. youngamerican (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Whether some info is useful or not is besides the point (in fact, some categories of useful information automatically get excluded from Wikipedia such as How-To's, Quotations, Recipes, etc.). This is just listcruft. Doesn't belong in what is an attempt at an encyclopedia. Arguments that "harmless" articles should be kept even if they don't really belong in an encylopedia overlook the accumulative harm this does to Wikipedia's claim to being an authoritative encylcopedia. Bwithh 20:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bwithh. My sentiments exactly. ReykYO! 23:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful information on a valid topic involving a multi-billion dollar industry. We need this if we want to remain an authoritative encyclopedia covering a diverse range of interests. The cumulative effect of deleting valuable articles like this is to weaken seriously the overall utility of wikipedia as a reference source.--JJay 00:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bwithh. --Starionwolf 00:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Delta 01:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. What next, wikipedia become keepers of the Linux Hardware Compatibilityl list? -- GWO
Keep Some of the information can be verified from pdf links from this official australian playstation page [3] which links to pdf files [4][5][6][7] for the 75002 hardware.Atirage 13:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is useful, relevant information in a huge industry, and easily verifiable. I'm afraid I don't understand many of the delete votes: It may not be useful to any of the editors on here, but we are not Britannica (which is a good thing.) I admit it is slighty crufty, but I don't see this doing any harm because of the vast notability of the business that is trying to make backward compatibility a universal feature of new systems. Grandmasterka 19:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Aguerriero (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of considerable interest to the 110+ million people out there who own PS2's. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The consensus seems to be keep, so I am not adverse to the page being kept. It just reads like mere advice to me, that's all. Jammo (SM247) 01:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments/duscussion above. ···日本穣? · TalktoNihonjoe 03:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an apparently useful list which can be verified through reliable sources. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Useful list. Just work on the sourcing. When the PS3 comes out we are going to have List of PlayStation 2 games incompatible with PlayStation 3 and List of PlayStation games incompatible with PlayStation 3 as well. Hmm, what about List of Xbox games incompatible with Xbox 360? Dread Lord CyberSkull✎☠ 12:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I can see its potential, but it definitely needs wikilinks and sourcing. The Final Fantasy Anthology article says that the incompatibilities of the game were fixed in later PS2hardware revisions. Someone should look into that. --Optichan 16:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep! Wikipedia is full of lists like this. It is useful information which can be added to. Vulcher 00:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful information, can be verified. - CNichols 01:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Who did the deletion request? a XBOX User who found out that his favorite Game is a Playstation Exclusive? --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 03:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wikipedia is useful for this kind of thing.- Richardcavell 00:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if verifiable, else delete. bbx 07:13, 15 June 2006 (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.