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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of level editors[edit]

The article is pointless to be blunt. There are millions of computer games, and therefore millions of level editors. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or lists. Localzuk ^(talk) 11:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Game/list cruft. MER-C 12:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Listcruft is not an actual policy or guideline.
• Delete I disagree with the nom on a number of points. There haven't been millions of computer games, or even anything remotely close. Mobygames, arguably the most complete list of electronic games anywhere, is only up to 29,529, and that includes console and handheld games too. Of those, very few (maybe 1% of them) have any level-editing capability at all. However, though I disagree on the reasoning, I too think this should be deleted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, if you believe this is indiscriminate information feel free to remove the non-notable items. Kappa 03:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as per Kappa. Some editors are notable and the list is useful. The non-notable itens can be removed from the list. --Carioca 04:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. For the same reason there are no lists of Computer games, because that would be an indisciminate collection of information, there should not be a list of level editors. Ohconfucius 08:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This has to be the archetypal pointless list. Legis 15:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I created the list specifically because people kept cluttering the article, level editor, with their favorite editors. The list allows them to put it somewhere where it won't interfere with the prose. Wikipedia has many lists, and they are useful for many reasons. Per Carioca, the non-notable ones can be removed from the list. Also, if you look at the policy, under bullet #2, it says list are discouraged except "for structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles" which is exactly what this list is. @Ohconfucius, actually there are dozens of lists of Computer games on the 'pedia. — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Rename to List of level editors for computer and video games. - jc37 23:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I, of couse, support the keep, I disagree with the renaming since there is currently no conflict. Since there is no conflict, and there is probably never going to be, I favor keeping the name as it is. — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Amatuer game design is a significant community, and this information should be retained. Also, Wikipedia:Incomplete_lists states that Wikipedia is an Almanac, and WP:NOT does not say that Wiki is not an Almanac. This allows for lists on the Wiki. This list in particular only needs to be cleaned up, as per Kappa's suggestion, and observed to prevent "millions" of level editors to be added. Inmatarian 18:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Remove the non-notable items, but on the whole, this is just as valid a list as others on Wikipedia. EVula 18:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (though Rename to List of level editors for computer and video games; jc37 has the right idea, there). In addition to Inmatarian's argument, I should remind you all that we're in a point in game development history where companies are seriously looking at "player-created content"—in that light, removing a list like this out-of-hand is patently absurd. Information like this should be retained, especially in the case of dedicated construction sets such as Maze Craze, The Bard's Tale Construction Set, Garry Kitchen's GameMaker and ZZT (which rely or relied far more on their community contributions than their own, "default" levels). Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater! --E. Megas 19:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have yet to hear a lucid argument for why it needs to be renamed to "List of level editors for computer and video games." That name is unnecessarily unweildly. Normally we only add extra modifiers to names when they clash with another article. What else is in the world has level editors but computer and video games? Level editors for word processors? However, I am perfectly happy to defer this issue until we resolve whether or not to delete this list. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is exactly the kind of info that is a ) useful and b) impossible to find on gamecruft sites. IMHO, instead of providing yet one more picture of Mario Wikipedia should be helping game afficionados and game software develpers push the envelope further. This list is a good start Renmiri 22:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep this does seem like gamecruft to me, but with a little bit of cleanup, this could actually be a resourceful tool. guitarhero777777 04:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and please do not rename. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Very weak keep on the condition that we make a serious effort to add some actual content. At least a sentence or two on each, minimum, methinks. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 10:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep useful and maintainable list. Non-notable entries in the list should be purged through the normal channels. — brighterorange (talk) 15:15, 20 September 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.