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 Rename to List of chess video games. Personally I'd prefer to drop the "video" from that title, but we'll go with the existing consensus first and the actual name can be discussed on the article's talk page later. Waggers (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nintendo DS chess games[edit]

List of Nintendo DS chess games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I am somewhat concerned about the notability of this topic. The DS hasn't been famous for chess games, nor has it received tons of coverage because of it's chess games.  Marlith (Talk)  17:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is nonsense, you cannot categorize an article if it has not been written yet. You see those red links at the list? That means no article has been written. Lists allow red links so people can know a topic exists and then hopefully an editor can come along and write an article about it in the future. Green Squares (talk) 10:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about overcategorization (regardless whether or not it'd a list or category) and not about redlinks. Please re-read my statement above. MuZemike (talk) 18:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change to merge to a new article titled List of chess video games as Someone another mentioned below. This should get rid of the WP:OCAT problem as well as help expand the list. MuZemike (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that they would already be listed there. MuZemike (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then I would think the problem is already solved. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 23:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't having such an article result in a massive unsourceable list? A search on GameFAQs returns 150 results and that's only including chess games that actually have the word 'chess' in the title. This also doesn't include the vast number of chess games released on cellphones, compilation games, alternate versions/plays/takes on chess that have obscure names and chess programs that were included in many '84 Apple computers. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 01:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
150 is certainly manageable compared to the over 850 titles in the List of NES games or the over 1100 titles in the List of Famicom games. MuZemike (talk) 01:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
90% of the content on both of those lists are sourced and link to articles about the games in question. While 150+ may be much more manageable than 850 or 1100, is it really feasible to think that even 50% of the games listed in the GameFAQs search could be properly sourced and have non-stub articles written for them? -- Jelly Soup (talk) 02:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For lists, each item does not necessarily need to be notable, just verified that it exists. As long as the list as a whole is inherently notable and does not constitute WP:OCAT, then it's fine. MuZemike (talk) 05:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: for any old acceptable list. Obviously, featured lists face much more scrutiny as far as notability of each individual item is concerned. MuZemike (talk) 05:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MuZemike (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2008 (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.
More