Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of physics-based computer and video games

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. Consensus appears to be that in the unsourced condition, and fuzzy inclusion criteria, the list suffers from original research problems. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of physics-based computer and video games

Patent original research. Games are added or removed from the list based on some gut feeling of what uses more physics. ~~See the article's discussion page and recognize that this list based entirely on the personal opinion of a few editors.~~ Zero references to establish the notability, verifiability, or neutrality of any of the information in this list. This article fails on all fundamental planks of wikipedia policy and is absolutely without redemption. Strong delete. Randomran (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Randomran (talk) 19:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Contrary to the nom, I see the talk page as a reasonable discussion of what the content should be, in order to achieve a consensus on that. That's where the discussion belongs. Not here. DGG (talk) 20:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's nothing wrong with discussion. My point is that the discussion shows that this list is based on original research:

Editor #1: Arent virtually all 3D video/computer games "physics-based"? The list seems very redundant, and not very helpful since it is so short.

Editor #2: No. Many games utilize some physics (eg gravity on the player), but very few games make a point of actually basing the gameplay heavily on physics-calculated objects.

At any rate, the discussion is not the basis of this deletion. I've struck out that part of my reasoning since it's distracting from the main point. My basis is WP:OR.Randomran (talk) 20:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The phrase "important aspect of gameplay" is highly subjective and therefore it fails to have clear criteria. I suggest that most if not all modern games fit into this criteria and therefore the list fails on being too general and indiscriminate. However if the games can be sourced it can probably be merged ewith Physics engine. --neonwhite user page talk 01:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - very subjective inclusion and a giant load of games nowadays utilize physics in some fashion (first person shooters anyone?). Fails WP:NOT#INFO and WP:NOR. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I appreciate the idea behind this list, but it is WP:OR, and increasingly redundant as physics-based gameplay becomes commonplace. An article on the subject may be feasible, but this list isn't it. Marasmusine (talk) 06:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate (due to subjective inclusion criteria), unverifiable and original research. Jakew (talk) 13:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as discrminate and verifiable that like a category or table of contents provides a navigation benefit for editors that does not fall under "original research" criteria. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is completely unreferenced. --neonwhite user page talk 22:32, 26 May 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.