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The result was Nomination Withdrawn. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SingStar (PlayStation 2)

[edit]

Consensus was reached in December 2007 - January 2008 on the SingStar talk page that individual articles on each PS2 SingStar game should be replaced by a single List of SingStar titles article. The games -- while notable as a whole -- do not justify over 20 articles detailing the track list in every country. Specific Wikipedia policies that these articles fail include: WP:NOTABILITY, WP:INDISCRIMINATE

This AFD nomination includes the following articles (every PS2 game):

Tntnnbltn (talk) 21:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Tntnnbltn (talk) 22:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge on Per nom and consensus on the talk page, the project would be better with one central article instead of a whole maze of crufty details. Beeblbrox (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like a merge and redirect discussion (which I would support), not a delete and recreate discussion. -- saberwyn 22:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If this is a merge proposal, this should be handled by merge tags, not a request for deletion. Merges need to leave redirects behind, to keep track of edit histories for GDFL purposes. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I've listed this in the wrong place then. I didn't know whether this fell on the side of merging or deletion. (Indeed, I originally had merge tags put up before I moved this onto AFD). I just wanted to go through the proper channels, as deleting the content of 27 articles is no small feat. --Tntnnbltn (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This would be merging, yeah. Follow the instructions at WP:MERGE and you should be good, especially given the consensus you mention in your nomination. Though, now that the AfD is open, you'll need to wait to do the work until it's closed (or you withdraw it). —Quasirandom (talk) 01:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. With the SingStar parent page. Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 00:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, support the merge per Beeblbrox. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the one main article. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 06:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Fattyjwoods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atyndall (talk • contribs)
Keep all as separate articles as it will make a large merged article, the crufty detail should be kept as that is what Wikipedia is great for. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There already is a 'large' merged article at List of SingStar titles. It is only 46kb big, and is easier to navigate than the separate pages. --Tntnnbltn (talk) 04:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all: Notable series, notable games, attempting to throw all the information into a single article would result in split proposals. Articles need expansion, not deletion. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 13:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as astonishingly notable games each of which have had reviews in multiple published sources and which are sold in variations around the world. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per consensus already reached on talk page. There was really no need to bring it to AFD, just be WP:BOLD and merge them. KleenupKrew (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that the talk page discussions are ongoing. Moreover, even if there is any consensus to merge, then we cannot legally delete the articles per Wikipedia:Merge and delete. We would redirect without deleting in order to keep the edit histories public. Thus, if the nomination is a merge proposal, then we do not take merge proposals to articles for deletion, because we cannot delete merged articles. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - May I ask what in the world you are talking about? Where above did I say delete? Also, consensus was reached in January until you added your comments today. KleenupKrew (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - A merge discussion should not go to AfD. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Which is exactly what I said above: "There was really no need to bring it to AFD, just be WP:BOLD and merge them." KleenupKrew (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay, then even if my comments on the talk page are new, that still reflects an ongoing discussion. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Your comments were not new until after I posted the above "merge" !vote, so you could then come back here and claim there is an ongoing discussion. There is no "ongoing discussion", just you stalking my edits. Really, I try, but it's hard to assume WP:GOODFAITH about an admitted sockpuppeteer who regularly reports other good faith users to checkuser just because we believe Wikipedia needs to have much of the promo, spam, fringe politics, and fancruft articles trimmed from the project. By the way, I just love your knee-jerk "overturn" on deletion review for John Wesley Rawles. He has a non-notable survival blog and his article should have been speedied as spam long ago. KleenupKrew (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Come again? Before you make accusations, you should consider your own participation here. I never report good faith editors to checkusers and have successfully identified over twenty sock accounts. I would be able to take your stances in AfD with more credibility if you helped contribute to articles as well and do not just go down the list of AfDs voting to delete as many articles as you can, because you personally do not like certain kinds of articles. As pertains to the SingStar articles under question, I have been editing the SingStar articles under question (see [1], [2], [3], etc.) and so even if I only recently commented on the talk page, I posted on this AfD prior to you and I have enough history of contributions to these various SingStar articles that it is entirely reasonable that I would participate in such a discussion regardless of your editing. Plus, there are plenty of articles I argue to delete: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Best of Sonic the Hedgehog, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Smith (musician), etc. I encourage you to stay focused on the articles under question. This discussion is not about you or I. Best regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        There are plenty of articles I argue to keep. Here are a few: List of UK railfan jargon, List of U.S. railfan jargon, operating expense, income statement, various aircraft categories just to name a few. Wikipedia does not have enough attention to creating and improving those kind of articles. Instead it is cluttered with topics that have little notability and no coverage in any traditional media of note. If keep !votes from me are rare there is a good reason: the keepworthy topics hardly ever make it to AFD. This is funny: "I never report good faith editors to checkusers". You reported me a couple of weeks ago and have been stalking my edits ever since. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Considering how many AfDs you rapidly go down voting to delete, I suppose it is hard to not occasionally make a keep argument somewhere after you in those discussions, but before you precede further with making bogus accusations, you may want to re-check all the pages/discussions in which we both participated and in which I argued to keep or edited earlier in the discussions and you voted to delete or edited later, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communist terrorism (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass deaths and atrocities of the twentieth century, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Soviet and Russian leaders by height, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cults and new religious movements in literature and popular culture (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaina Solo (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SingStar (PlayStation 2), Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 23#List of victims of the Columbine High School massacre, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 23#List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre, and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Redfarmer, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wisdom89 3. In fact, you and I have only edited 17 of the same pages total and I have nearly 20,000 edits with edits to thousands of unique pages. So, again, I encourage you not to make something out of nothing and to stay focused on the articles under discussion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - aside from there being way too many items to gage at once at this AfD, there appears to be reviews from reliable sources for most of these games, and that was a cursory search. If local consensus wants to merge them, then so be it, but that's not appropriate for here. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: the discussion about WP:Merge and Delete, I don't think that applies here because the List of SingStar titles (the 'merged' article) was created entirely by myself at User:Tntnnbltn/olddraft2 using external sources. No material from the articles listed were used in any way to make the new page, so I don't think it's necessary to keep contributor history. That said, I realise now that AFD was not the right place to raise this discussion. The end result I wanted was for these articles to be redirected to List of SingStar titles. --Tntnnbltn (talk) 07:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, then, I think you should withdraw the AfD, which should be closed and either be WP:Bold and redirect or continue the discussions. One thing I will note is that when I checked the list yesterday, it did not seem to have all the countries' different track lists, so it did not seem as if the merger was complete. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 11:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Withdraw as per above. Will proceed with bold redirect. The non-inclusion of international track lists is intentional, as is explained in the lead of the article. --Tntnnbltn (talk) 13:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although closely linked in a series, they are all standalone products, each of which will have been reviewed/discussed/rate in computer magazines the world over -independent sources with international distribution. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:10, 24 April 2008 (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.