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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 00:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Commodore 16 games[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

A list seemingly relying on copying from a Plus/4 World database. IgelRM (talk) 22:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. IgelRM (talk) 22:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violates WP:NOTDATABASE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

C16 was big in Europe. This is not the same exact list as PD/Homebrew games are omitted. NPI WOL (talk) 22:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - feels similar to the recent discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Atari 2600 prototype games, which ended with a consensus to send it to the draft space. This sort of list can be done right. But not like this. Needs sourcing, which can be hard to come by with a subject so old like this. It could be improved, but it also has no business existing in the main space as is. Sergecross73 msg me 23:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was games not released, so totally unrelated to the situation here. Category:Video game lists by platform shows how many list like this exist. Any references can be found in the 76 game articles linked to. Dream Focus 03:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's completely irrelevant. Whether or not the games were released was not a factor in that discussion. The point was, it was a valid list premise, but couldn't be published as its current form because of a complete lack of sourcing. I dont understand how you missed the point so badly... Sergecross73 msg me 13:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already added some references simply by looking at the articles linked to and copying them over. As I clearly stated, the 76 games articles linked to have references confirming they exist. The many other lists like this don't have references for every single item. If you wish to delete any entry without a reference and/or their own article, then you still have 76 things listed, so its a valid list. Dream Focus 14:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say roughly 75% of the entries don't have an article to check for sources though, which still leaves you with an article that's either largely unsourced (or wildly incomplete if you remove all unsourced entries.) Still feels like a prime candidate for the draft space... Sergecross73 msg me 15:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as stated above, whilst somewhat lazy of me, the response in the Atari 2600 discussion is identically relevant here: The list is a valid one with a clear category and not inherently without merit. But it's just unverifiable based on the lack of sourcing, the ambiguous scope, and non-notability of the items themselves. Put it this way - if it were a list, the immediate question would be "How do you know these are eligible?" In this case, there is one source, but that isn't going to be enough to WP:VERIFY the list. More work is needed. (talk) 05:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify for the reasons stated by ＶＲＸＣＥＳ.Rillington (talk) 10:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is a relevant list of a relevant system, not some random prototype. NPI WOL (talk) 10:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you have to WP:VERIFY that the list is correct. It may not be as arbitrary as the other example, but relying on a single source for this list is putting a very strong faith in that source being a correct and complete list. So really the article is no more reliable than just going to the external source. The best course is to either find more sources, or draftify it until someone does so. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:06, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(You're supposed to identify yourself as the article creator.) Even ignoring Wikipedia policies that make this not okay, the list, as is, is completely unnecessary. You just stole another websites list and put it in Wikipedia. People should be going to see their website to see their list. It's entirely redundant. A list of these games is possible...but absolutely not like this. Sergecross73 msg me 13:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also want this article kept but I agree with ＶＲＸＣＥＳ, and would also add that the article needs independent references as well before it can be returned to mainspace. Therefore I feel that draftifying the article is the right course of action at this point.

One option might be for the list to be a combination of notable games and games which can be verified with an independent reference. Rillington (talk) 01:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment: @NPI WOL: Could you say where you source this list from? I think policy is to Wikipedia:Revision deletion copyright violations, but we may keep the entries that can be verified by the added sources. We could redirect a redirect to the existing category as long as the list is in draft if that helps with concerns? IgelRM (talk) 07:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Category:Commodore_16_and_Plus/4_games there are 76 games that have articles, so valid navigational list. Lists are always more useful than categories, since they allow more information. Dream Focus 03:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't address the severe sourcing issues raised. Sergecross73 msg me 13:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned that above already. But I also went and found that MobyGames has all these games listed, with covers and screenshots proving they exist, and links to reviews done in old magazines about them that also prove they exist. The old magazines linked to are backed up on archive.org. Since no discussion on MobyGames being considered a reliable source has taken place in over a decade, I started a discussion for that at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#MobyGames_owned_by_Atari_now. Dream Focus 15:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For those of you not clicking on that link, please note that, as of my writing this, the suggestion of using MobyGames as a source was unanimously rejected by the Wikiproject members. Sergecross73 msg me 13:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You and the four people who participated are against it. Dream Focus 15:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, correct. You suggested it. 5 people opposed. 0 supported. Sergecross73 msg me 15:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Following the addition of external references I am now changing my vote from draftify to keep. Rillington (talk) 06:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An editor sourcing 6 out of 900+ entries was enough for you to decide incubating in the draft space was not necessary and is now ready to be published? Sergecross73 msg me 13:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 75 articles linked to have references that can be copied over, and there are old magazines archived that review other things. No one is going to work on the article if its in draft space. AFD determine if an article should exist, not judging the current state it is in. Dream Focus 15:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
20 references in the reflist now. Very easy to do. Dream Focus 15:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles that are technically plausible, but wildly underdeveloped/undersourced, are the very reason why we have the draft space. There is no rush here. As I noted above, the article creator largely just copy/pasted this list from another website. The info will still be available on the internet if it's sent to draft. Sergecross73 msg me 15:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes because it is clear to me that the references now found, and added, means that the contents of this list can be independently verified. This means that the article is now suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia, and now does not need to be relegated to draftspace. Rillington (talk) 00:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found a physical museum that has old games in its collection. https://www.computinghistory.org.uk/sec/1973/Commodore-C16-Plus-4/ That proves they exist and basic information about them. They have 181 games in their collection for this system. Other museums surely exist out there as well to reference the rest. The current list has 546 games total on it. Dream Focus 07:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment: I don't think there was much doubt that the games exist. A Wikipedia article relying on their database not be in interest of the museum? It appears to only list a game's cover, format, publisher, author and release year. IgelRM (talk) 07:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
76 of the games currently have links to their own articles. So that's enough for the list article to exist. As for the other games listed, they are there to make the list complete. If there is no doubt they exist, no reason to remove any of them from the list. Dream Focus 07:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 07:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a perfectly valid navigational list. The argument for deletion/draftification is that many of the entries are unsourced, but "was this a Commodore 16 game or not" is extremely easy to verify. Items that fail verification can simply be removed. There's no reason to delete or even to draftify this. -- asilvering (talk) 03:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This list is complete, it has historical encyclopaedic value to anyone with an interest in retro videogames. Not only that, but games for a specific console are a widely discussed topic as a group. My question then to inclusion criteria is whether sources do likely exist. I did a spot check on some random ones on this list, and I'm satisfied that okayish sources do generally exist. For example, picking a random one from the list "Astro Plumber" I found https://www.computinghistory.org.uk/det/47327/Astro%20Plumber/ and nothing else after some real hard looking. I think this article is valid, but should adopt a WP:CSC of requiring citation. I'm happy to move the current page content onto the talk page after this AfD closes. BrigadierG (talk) 00:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Needs additional citations for verification, but meets WP:NLIST as video games for a console are often discussed together. Can also serve as a navigational list. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 00:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment: @Liz: Recent comments don't deal with the nomination concern of database copyright, we all know it meets WP:NLIST. Could you recommend a different venue that deals with this so I may withdraw this AFD? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IgelRM (talk • contribs)
WP:CCI deals with WP:COPYVIO stuff, if that's what you're asking. Diannaa would probably be a good go-to Admin on it too. Sergecross73 msg me 13:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The list contains no creative content, so it doesn't qualify for copyright protection. — Diannaa (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Diannaa: There is database right but I suppose this is more of a moral case here? Thanks IgelRM (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't re-create a database; we only offer a list of products. — Diannaa (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Title, Genre, Release date, and Language are not a copyright issue. That information is on the game box. Same with Compilation, this just a list of products and what they contained. Where did the person who made the original database get the information from? Did they find a copy of every single game and copy the information from the boxes they came in? Dream Focus 11:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All you have to do is look at it. Only a single "source" was present at the time he created and published the article. It contains the same columns in the same order, and it was largely created on one massive edit. It doesn't take a genius to see he clearly plagiarized/ripped off that database website. Sergecross73 msg me 13:47, 13 April 2024 (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.