Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nintendogs lists

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 Delete both. Proto||type 09:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This includes:

• List of Nintendogs Breeds
• List of Nintendogs Items

Contextless lists of objects in a video game. Possibly suited to GameFAQs, but certainly unencyclopedic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Has potential, and I think it deserves a little time to grow. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  20:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Potential to become what? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't see a lot of potential. Breeds should be mentioned in the main Nintendogs article, and the item list should go. --Optichan 20:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Nintendogs article. Deathawk 21:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How would a list of frisbees and dog treats benefit the Nintendogs article? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unless the articles are expanded to fit Wikipedia standard (there are plenty of "List of XXX items/objects/artifacts" and "List of XXX characters"). A Link to the Past and I had a revert war back around September which A Man in Black helped solve, where it was concluded the list of breeds was not necessary for the article. The same conclusion can be achieved with the items. I try to keep items to the minimun (in Animal Crossing: Wild World I deleted an entire list). -- ReyBrujo 21:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heh. I had totally forgotten that thing with you and LttP. I guess that's why I had Nintendogs watchlisted. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per nom. Not beneficial to either the encyclopedia as a whole, or the main Nintendogs article Please go to GameFAQs. -- The preceding unsigned comment was added by Celestianpower (talk • contribs) .
• Delete Unencyclopedic messes that don't necessitate merging. -- Kicking222 23:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Both of these seem wholly unencyclopedic. ScottW 12:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per wikipedia is WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information and it's too crufty for inclusion here Ydam 13:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOT for indiscriminate lists of gamecruft. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Wikipedia itself says that no article is ever "too large". TsunamiWave7 01:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 15:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 15:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I think this should all be in the Nintendogs article. Giant Blue Anteater 03:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP I think if we merge the articles, Nintendogs will be too large. Perhaps we could have a Category:Nintendogs??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zeldamaster3 (talk • contribs) .
• Comment To me, I think big articles are cool. Why do people dislike having large articles? Giant Blue Anteater 00:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete gamecruft Bwithh 21:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We are not GameFAQs! ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 23:16, 13 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.