Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronology of significant platform 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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology of significant platform games[edit]

The scope of the article is not well defined due to the vague nature of the article conferred upon it by its name. "Significant" is not the best choice of words for grouping articles, especially when there are no sources cited to show that these games are significant to people other than the article's creators. Not only is it unsourced, but it is an opinion page. Also, much of the information found on this page can be found in the history section of the platform game article. In short, it violates no original research, and neutral point of view. bwowen ^talk.^contribs 13:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Significant" is subjective, and thus the list is built upon arbitrary data. As stated by the nominator, a violation of NOR. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. bwowen ^talk.^contribs 21:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion yet. Aren't there articles like this in history or science fields? List of significant something or other? Regardless, I think it's all sort of covered in the platform game article, so it wouldn't be a big tragedy to delete this list. Andre (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into platform game article. I had no idea what a platform game was until I saw that article. For those who didn't know either, it's a videogame where the characters jump or fall to platforms at different heights. Chutes and Ladders may have been the inspiration for the video game. Mandsford 03:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong merge to platform game in a significantly reduced form. I would argue that some games on the list (e.g. LocoRoco) are nowhere as "significant" as others (e.g. Super Mario Bros.). It's probably the addition of "fun, but not influential" games to the list that caused it to separate from the core article in the first place. Garrett^Talk 10:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list originally came from the platform game article, but there's really no need to send a reduced list back to that article, since significant games are already covered in the detailed history of the genre. On its own, the list lacks focus and critical analysis. Leebo ^T/C 13:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too vague and indiscriminate to ever form a decent article. Cheers, DWaterson 23:34, 8 July 2007 (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.