Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computer role-playing game

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 merge to role-playing video game. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Computer role-playing game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Also up for deletion: Console role-playing game

The subject is completely based on original research. The only evidence found is in the form of blogs, forum posts, websites which fail WP:RS, including WP:SPS, or items which blatantly violate WP:Synthesis. The subject is further putting undue weight on the English market and classifications, when historically most video game rpgs have been sold in Japan. Arguments against this use the fact that this is an English Wikipedia to dismiss this and that the subject should follow the "spirit" of the rules.陣内_Jinnai 19:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. That the article can be improved is not a reason to delete it. This is an encyclopedic topic. If the references there aren't good, add some! If you think that something is original research, change it! If you think the article should cover Japan more, add a section on Japan! Nobody is stopping you. The topic itself is fine and should not be deleted. Kwertii (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problem is it cannot because its a classification that isn't really used and what is rarely used is only in the west and doesn't have any concrete concept. Mostly used for advertisering, marketing, forum users, etc. Nothing that can pass WP:RS. Therefore its a question whether the concept even really exists outside of a marketing-brand label with no real definition.陣内_Jinnai 05:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the article needs better sourcing, but that alone is not reason to delete. As a prominent computer game genre, it's a notable, encyclopedic topic that warrants coverage on WP. There is case to be made that some reorganization of content is needed amongst this article and the console role-playing game and role-playing video game articles, but that's an issue better addressed on article talk pages and at WP:VG/WP:RPG wikiprojects rather than at AFD. --Muchness (talk) 06:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't a prominant computer genre though. That's the whole thing your missing.陣内_Jinnai 05:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The statement that this is not a prominent genre of computer gaming strikes me as unsupportable given that some of the most prominent historical and current computer game releases are universally classified as role-playing games – how else would you classify Baldur's Gate, NWN, Ultima, etc? This is the genre term used by the gaming devs, publishers, press and community. The question of whether the genre would be better covered alongside console rpgs under the broader topic of role-playing video game is a separate issue, and in my opinion there are more appropriate venues than AFD for hashing out the merge/reorg discussion. --Muchness (talk) 06:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just because they're role-playing video games does not mean there is a sub-genre for those on PCs specifically. I mean if we go by that kind of logic we could sub-divide forever and have items like 4-party member role-playing video games and 5-button-based role-playing video games.陣内_Jinnai 07:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - one good article is better than two iffy ones. Probably merge the AFDs, too. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now; I won't oppose a merge in the future if consensus deems so. Remember that there is a third article that would also need to be addressed (Cultural differences in role-playing video games) should that be considered. Note: I will also make this exact same statement at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Console role-playing game. –MuZemike 18:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There has been talk at WP:VG of merging it and talks before of merging it as well. When would you consider enough taking and time has passed? This isn't the first time a merge or possible deletion has been discussed, just the first its come here.陣内_Jinnai 05:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I wouldn't be opposed to merging the console role-playing game and role-playing video game articles, but definitely against deleting. There is valuable information in both articles which needs to be improved sure, but definitely not deleted wholesale.Caidh (talk) 03:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So if that's the case is your statement better as "keep or merge"? I'm not clear.陣内_Jinnai 05:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge To role-playing video game due to the classification being outdated and incorrect. It's better that they're divided by region rather than by system. I see no better time but the present to merge the articles. Heck, even Cultural differences in role-playing video games does not acknowledge this classification, instead choosing the terms "Eastern" and "Western" RPGs.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge To role-playing video game. I acknowledge the original research but the article must be worked, not deleted. However, there is not much sense 2 articles about video-RPGs.SSPecter ^Talk|E-Mail ◆ _{14:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)}.
• Merge to role-playing video game, along with console role-playing game. The small number of sources available that differentiate between these types of video role-playing game suggest that the pattern of differences is of only minor notability, of the sort that is best described in a single article rather than subjected to what may constitute a POV fork. Many of the differences ascribed to console RPGs relate to the dominance of Japanese titles in the console market, which has nothing particularly to do with the console platform. 10 different versions of Ultima were released on various console platforms, all of which break all the supposed conventions about console versus computer RPGs. Same goes for Balder's Gate, Everquest, Fallout, and all the other console RPGs that demonstrate this supposed pattern of divergence by platform doesn't have legs. The article cultural differences in role-playing video games could remain to describe the Asian vs. Western differences in video RPGs, although personally I don't think the few sources it has demonstrate enough notability for a whole article on the subject. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That article needs cleanup, and possible merge, there appears to somewhat better sourcing there and its easier to focus on one thing at a time.陣内_Jinnai 04:05, 11 January 2010 (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.