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. Star Mississippi 19:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of MT-32-compatible computer 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 article with no sourcing or any indication of why it might be notable. I was inspired by this article to draft one about Gravis UltraSound-compatible games, but determined that neither can be expanded to include a decent prose as to why the technologies are noteworthy in video gaming, as corroborated by my searches not yielding enough sources dedicated to the technologies. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#List of games with Gravis UltraSound support. Free Media Kid$ 15:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Lists. Free Media Kid$ 15:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not withstanding a search for sources that comes up empty, I wonder if this might meet WP:LISTN, as that requires that the entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. I know that retro gaming YouTubers like LGR and PhilsComputerLab have done dedicated videos on the MT-32, as well as other vintage sound hardware like the Gravis UltraSound. While we can't cite those videos directly, there might be sources mentioned within those videos that meet our criteria for RS and would demonstrate the notability of the set such that LISTN would be satisfied and a list of these games would be appropriate. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be entirely original research without any sources. This belongs on a gaming site, not Wikipedia. Reywas92^Talk 15:45, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The notability of the Roland MT-32 article has not been in question so far, so it is unclear to me why a list of games supporting it should require a separate indication of notability. We do not require a list of video games released for a particular video game system to have a an indication of notability, separately from the article on the video game system itself, either, do we? If the question is "What makes MT-32 support more notable for games than support for the Covox Speech Thing or the Adlib Gold 1000?", then I would consider it already answered in the "Music for PC games" section of the Roland MT-32 article.

As for the lack of sourcing, I do not see a source for every release date on every "List of games released for system X" either, so I question the strict enforcement of this policy against this particular list. Even if the requirement were to be enforced, it would be much easier to fulfill (by linking to box scans on MobyGames listing the MT-32 as a supported sound device) than a hypothetical requirement for a source for every single release date on the "List of games released for system X" pages would be. The link to the MobyGames list as a source is poorly-formatted at this time, but that can be easily mended. NewRisingSun (talk) 20:49, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To all the deletionists: what are you guys hoping to achieve by deleting this page, really? More disk space? Less "noise"? Conforming to some idealised "19th century encyclopdia" concept of yours?

I'm a pragmatic person and I see Wikipedia as a wiki collecting information that's useful to people. Whether some of you people like that or not, that's how it's being used. The 18th-19th century concept of a "classic encyclopedia" has long been surpassed, I find it actually a little silly that the word "encyclopedia" is still kept in the official description of the site. E.g. I routinely come to Wikipedia to check out the synopsis of a particular episode of a TV series (please count how many such lists exist on WP!), or the list of games that use Unity, or lists of films released in a particular year, or the list of joint winners of the Nebula and Hugo awards, or... the list games that support the MT-32! In fact, I came to Wikipedia to check out lists far more frequently than anything else.

Seconding NewRisingSun's irritation; it's fine if you want to delete your own page, but this list has been lovingly maintained over 15 years by the same single guy, and has garnered more than 100k page views. Please leave it alone. Surely, the popularity of a given page should be factored into such decisions. People are clearly interested in this page, without the shadow of a doubt. Can you imagine how many other sites are linking to it? By deleting it, all those links would be broken... Again, what do you hope to accomplish by deleting other people's work?

All in all, this is an inconsistent and completely arbitrary attempt to remove a page that's an extremely useful resource for DOS gamers. And if we're questioning the significance of the Roland MT-32 itself, well, I don't even know what else to say...

Moreover, "references" could be added by linking to MobyGames or some other site. But come on, how would that be helpful? That's just creating busywork... GanymedeanSlimeMold (talk) 03:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

!vote Keep (maybe it will work this time; as you can see I'm new to this voting thing...) GanymedeanSlimeMold (talk) 07:17, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, I'm 100% an inclusionist!

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Inclusionism GanymedeanSlimeMold (talk) 07:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On determining notoriety, Wikipedia has many interesting lists. For example, the video game Guitar Hero III has a separate page dedicated to inventorying its soundtrack. That's one game, at one point in time, by one publisher. In comparison, from the late 80s through the mid-90s, famous musicians used Roland's MT-32 to compose game soundtracks because it offered the most realistic instrument reproduction, without equal. Game publishers targeted Roland's MT-32 across 13 separate PC platforms, from Atari to the Macintosh, and it was popular in Japan, Europe, and the Americas. As a co-maintainer of DOSBox Staging, one of many DOSBox software forks that use Munt, an MT-32 emulator, I can attest to the fact that many users refer to this page to learn about the games that contain MT-32 soundtracks. This information is highly valuable and of historical significance for retro PC historians and gamers alike. 99.199.156.216 (talk) 01:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC) kcgen[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE. It is not encyclopedic to know every single game that supports a specific sound hardware. Ajf773 (talk) 08:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given the large number of notable existing video-game-related list articles ("by technology or feature"), such a blanket reference to the very general the "Wikipedia is not a directory" policy cannot sufficiently justify the deletion of a particular video-game-related list article without also explaining what makes this list different from and more delete-worthy than all these other video-game-related lists. NewRisingSun (talk) 19:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May I also express my irritation at the thinking behind "I questioned the notability of my own article and therefore decided to nominate somebody else's article for deletion"? NewRisingSun (talk) 19:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from WP:N, can someone explain the significance of this? I get the lists for each platform, but lists for each component? Why is this much different from, say, "list of games that support 1024x768 resolution" or "list of games that support an XBox 360 controller", apart from perhaps the smaller overall number. I'm inclined to say delete on WP:NLIST and WP:NOT grounds... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:46, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is an extremely important list if you're playing classic DOS games because it tells you which MT-32 ROM version you need to use for each game that has MT-32 support. Figuring out that information is not trivial, to say the least. Also, some games claim they're MT-32 compatible, but in fact they're not; they need a General MIDI compatible device to play the music correctly.

In general, I'm firmly of the opinion that the deletion of a particular page should NOT be decided by people who need explanations why a particular page is important or significant. Let's leave that to the experts on that particular topic. E.g. I don't know much (or care) about chemistry or history, so I won't go and suggest chemistry or history related pages for deletion, precisely because I don't have a clue about what's important and what isn't. I'm leaving that to the experts who are maintaining those pages and rely on their decisions. GanymedeanSlimeMold (talk) 07:11, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The question isn't whether it's important. Tons of this are "important if you're interested in XYZ". We're not talking about erasing this information from the internet. The question is whether it rises to a notable topic (in the sense of WP:N) such that it should be on Wikipedia as opposed to some other wiki, site with information about games, etc. Wikipedia isn't all things that are useful to people. In fact, we have a bit written about that (WP:ITSUSEFUL). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I have written above (and which you have failed to acknowledge), the answer on why MT-32 support is more notable than other sound standards is provided in the ["Music for PC games" section of the Roland MT-32 article]. Furthermore, as I have also explained, it is very uncommon to list the notability of a list on the list's article page itself, since the notability of the list largely is a consequence of the notability of the subject enumerated by the list. You have failed to acknowledge that aspect as well. Overall, the deletionists' case here relies on making blanket statements linking to the most general versions of Wikipedia policy while deliberately ignoring both the points that were already raised and how this list compares to the many similar lists that I have already linked to. I suggest that anybody who feels the need to excrete yet another pointless link to "WP:N" to this discussion page first take the time to actually read the points that were made. NewRisingSun (talk) 08:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is about coverage in independent reliable sources. But more saliently, you're pointing me to a section of an article with no sourcing whatsoever. Notability isn't "what's important" or "what's useful" but "what has received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject". If there have been various articles, etc. about the MT-32 and games, that's what will persuade the evil "deletionists". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Will you acknowledge notability of the list if I add references for the particular existing statements in the "Music for PC games" section? Otherwise, I shall not waste my time on this any more, as you would be making impossible-to-fulfill demands. And don't give me any crap like "it would be a start" -- either "yes, would make it notable", or "no, would not be sufficient for me." NewRisingSun (talk) 14:41, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like you've perhaps had some traumatic experience at AfD in the past. Sorry about that, but I'm not your enemy. Note, btw, that I haven't done a boldtext !vote here. This just seems like something more appropriate for a different site, but I'm happy to be shown otherwise (it's also not just up to me -- I'm just one person). You don't have to edit the article, even -- all anyone has to do is link some articles that satisfy WP:GNG/WP:LISTN here in this discussion, or to show that this would be due weight to include in the main article if it hadn't been spun out. As long as they're reliable (evidence of things like fact-checking, editorial oversight, a good reputation for accuracy, etc.), then that should suffice. I'm not going to give some blanket assurance because I have no idea what you're going to link, and people frequently put forward e.g. fansites, self-published sources, non-independent sources, etc. as evidence of notability when they don't meet Wikipedia's standards. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:55, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would be adding one or two references to "Computer Gaming World" from the early 1990s, and to Sierra On-Line catalogues for the Sierra-specific statements, to the existing statements in "Music for PC Games"; I would not be adding any new statements.

If it cannot be predicted with a degree of certainty whether this, or any given sourced statement, will or will not trigger notability, then that is a sign that "notability" in this context is a concept too nebulous to concern oneself with. In this context, I alert you to this revealing statement from [1]: "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y")." In short: good luck, you will need it.

Also, contradicting your statement that usefulness does not confer notability, the same policy page also states that "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.", followed by the incomprehensible sentence "Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself." What do I learn from this? At least in the context of lists, the notability requirement is a complete shitshow, causing not traumatization, but certainly frustration. NewRisingSun (talk) 15:49, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per my above comment. GanymedeanSlimeMold (talk) 03:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we cannot have lists that cannot be properly sourced. Full stop. WP:V is non-negotiable. None of the keep arguments are even coming close to acknowledging or addressing this fatal shortcoming. We don't keep articles based on vague grumblings about not liking to delete things, or finding thing personally useful. There are WP:GAMECRUFT and WP:NOTCATALOGUE concerns too, but there's no point in even delving into all of that if you've got a list you can't even reliably source. Sergecross73 msg me 03:27, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And what on earth makes you think that it "cannot" be properly sourced? If you cannot tell the difference between "is not sourced" and "cannot be sourced", you should not be participating in a deletion discussion. You also failed to acknowledge that not all of the arguments here are "vague grumblings about not looking to delete things, or finding things personally useful". NewRisingSun (talk) 07:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm saying I don't believe it can be reliably sourced. The keep arguments haven't cited a single valid policy/guideline/essay/anything, nor have they provided a single reliable source that shows that the grouping is discussed by reliable sources (WP:LISTN). The deletion nomination voices valid concerns, and every keep argument has basically been an WP:ATA or WP:OSE. Sergecross73 msg me 12:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I and others have cited several potential sources and plenty of policy, in particular in my response to Rhododendrites, and you are doing yourself no favors just pretending that it is not there. If you think that those do not qualify, then tell me with sufficient specificity why they don't qualify, and what exactly instead would. The vague policy pages you lazily linked to certainly do not provide that answer. NewRisingSun (talk) 12:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please repost the ones you specifically think satisfy LISTN. Sergecross73 msg me 13:07, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I stated that I don't know what it means to "satisfy LISTN" in light of LISTN's statement that "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y").", and challenge you to be able to tell whether any source satisfies it or not in that absence of consensus. I also said that "I would be adding one or two references to "Computer Gaming World" from the early 1990s". For example: "Re-Sounding Personal Computers" by Rich Heimlich, Computer Gaming World Issue 12/1990, pg. 60pp: "The MT-32 is based on MIDI (Musical Instrument Digital Interface), a standard already established in the music industry. It uses a technology known as linear Arithmetic Synthesis which enables the MT-32 to generate 32 voices of sound. Not only does the MT-32 have 21 more voices than an AdLib card, but it also benefits from the superior LAS technology. This allows for the most realistic sound available in computer gaming today. The MT-32 is like having a complete orchestra in your computer. It is so impressive that when this reviewer recently played Space Quest III using an MT-32, his jaw almost dropped to the floor. The experience is like living a dream." Is that sufficient notability? I am not going to waste time on more sources if it becomes clear that nothing will satisfy this (in the context of lists) nebulous requirement. And that you stated that you don't believe that it can be reliably sourced strongly hints at that outcome. I suppose it would help if you could write a hypothetical sentence that if properly sourced would make the "grouping" notable, because I beginning to have no idea anymore what it means for a "grouping to be notable". NewRisingSun (talk) 13:19, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources would be helpful for the notability of the parent Roland MT-32 article, but they don't help the list article in sourcing entries or establishing LISTN. Sergecross73 msg me 13:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? Explain it, damnit!!! I asked you what exactly would establish LISTN according to your nebulous criteria, and you refuse to answer that question for three posts now. Also, suddenly you are now pulling the "help the list article in sourcing entries" out of the bag, which was not talked about before. I already explained that individual entries *to* the list article are easily sourced with links to box scans that list MT-32 support, which are easily available. My god, you deletionists are impossible. NewRisingSun (talk) 13:53, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So far you have sourced how each thing in the list is notable. But why is the list important or notable. Sergecross has given you sources and information about the articles lack of notability and policies, either in this thread, or the other ones above it. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 16:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'm sympathetic to the fact that some of Wikipedia's rules are difficult to understand. But it's not particularly the duty of AFD participants (let alone someone who opposes your stance) to teach you Wikipedia policies. I'm not required to do anything more than give a policy-based stance and explain it well enough that the closing admin can understand it. I am not your mentor, teacher, or parent. Its up to you to learn, understand, and apply policy. That said, part of the issue here isn't even Wikipedia jargon. It's that there's a disconnect between your source(s) and the discussion taking place here today. You presented a fine source for explaining the notability of the subject of the Roland MT-32. That would have been a great piece of evidence if someone had nominated the Roland MT-32 article itself for deletion. But the Roland MT-32 article is not up for deletion. The list of games is. Your sources don't contribute anything to the games list itself. Sergecross73 msg me 18:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 16:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since Wikipedia user User:PerryPerryD has now abusively opened a frivolous [SPI investigation], I cannot carry on with this discussion any longer for my sanity. The list had already been copied to a different website as a back-up, and I have now replaced the link on the main MT-32 page with a link to it. NewRisingSun (talk) 07:01, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My SPI was opened in suspiscion due to the similarities between the comments. Which I now see were falsely made suspiscions. I do not want this to affect the AFD request. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 15:29, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Filing a good-faith SPI is not a problem even if you're wrong, and has no bearing on AFD. Sergecross73 msg me 15:41, 9 November 2022 (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.