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. Kurykh (talk) 01:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japan-exclusive video games[edit]

List of Japan-exclusive video games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

First off, the title of this article is misleading, since the list criteria which have been in the article since its creation in January 2006 have little to do with which countries the games have been released in. Per those criteria, the title should be "List of Japanese language video games with at least one version that has no official English language release". In other words:

• Games which are Japan-exclusive but are in English (yes, there are a considerable number of such games) do not qualify for this list
• Games which have been released in many countries but not in English do qualify for the list
• Games which have been released in English but had one version which was not in English (e.g. Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney, Dark Seed II, Grandia) do qualify for the list

Obviously the discrepancy between the title and the criteria can easily be fixed, either by changing the criteria or moving the article. However, whether you go by the title or the stated criteria, the list is far too broad in scope to ever come close to being comprehensive. This issue was brought up in the original AfD, which was closed as no consensus, and was not addressed by any of those who voted keep. All five of the "keep" votes provided no justification beyond vague assertions that the article can be improved, which just leads to the question: How can it possibly be improved? The inclusion criteria are too arbitrary and ill-defined to have been discussed in notable sources, so there's no reason to think that this article could one day have something more than original research. Martin IIIa (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - For what its worth, if this happens to be kept again, the article isn't very actively maintained, so you could probably alter the inclusion criteria without much resistance. (And if there was resistance, you could contact the very active WP:VG for assistance on consensus building.) I just thought I'd throw that out there, considering how many of your qualms seem to be focused around the article's current inclusion criteria. The article could possibly be reshaped into something that makes a bit more sense. (Not that I'm defending the article, I'm currently undecided.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've misunderstood me; I was discussing the inclusion criteria solely so that anyone viewing this AfD will understand exactly what the article I'm proposing to delete is, since the article title is misleading on that point. My reasons for wanting it deleted are its overly broad scope and lack of potential for sourced content.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom. I agree that the subject of the list is far, far too broad in scope to ever be comprehensive. A quick look at the number of entries in Category:Japan-exclusive video games shows just how many games this list would need to contain to be comprehensive. The existence of this category also makes this list somewhat unnecessary as a navigation tool, as the category can be used for the same purpose. There is also the issue that, as this list contain zero reliable source, the entire lead in and the arbitrary labeling of some of the games on the list as "import classics" is complete OR. While this list could be potentially completely reworked, have some reliable sources brought it to support its information, and have its inclusion criteria redefined into something that makes sense, that would essentially mean rebuilding the entire list from the ground up. And considering what poor shape this list has been in for years, if that was something that was desirable, it would be far easier to delete this one, and create an entirely new article in its place, rather than keep this mess around with the hope that somebody will fix it someday. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A list like this is incredibly unwieldy and hard to maintain. I think what the title suggests, is that there are some game released just for the Japanese market. I think that borders on WP:EXISTS and/or WP:OR, because we're the ones pointing to the exclusivity in Japan. It would need a parent article, like Japanese exclusive video game before such a list can happen. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - If this list were ever correctly filled out, there would be tens of thousands of entries. Japanese-only releases are better tracked on a smaller scale, which they already are in a more accurate manner, by platform. (For example, see List of PlayStation Vita games or List of PlayStation 4 games, which have columns that show which games are released in which regions. Sergecross73 msg me 13:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:INDISCRIMINATE if properly maintained with WP:LISTN-compatible criteria. As it is now, it is completely WP:OR with its inclusion criteria as there do not appear to be any reliable sources that group it this way. Redundant to other lists as well, like per-platform ones. No primary topic to warrant a separate list article either. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:51, 5 March 2017 (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.