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 All per unanimous consensus --JForget 23:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of video games: A-C[edit]

Along with the other lists

List of video games: D-H (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of video games: I-O (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of video games: P-S (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of video games: T-Z (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The categorization system is in MediaWiki for a reason, so we don't have lists like this. Sure there are cases where lists like this are appropriate, but the categories do this job better and then some. These are also invitations for spam and such, and is harder to maintain. Or in layman's terms, indiscriminate list with a scope that is too wide. ViperSnake151 Talk 21:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (talk) 22:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as there are better ways to organize all this such as with Lists of video games (which specify by platform, publisher, date, etc.). Attempting to list all video games in existence in this fashion would be far too difficult to maintain. MuZemike 21:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely impractical and impossible to maintain, plus no real definition is given as to what is and isn't included. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 23:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Far too broad of a list, no criteria as to what's included. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, the pages themselves are uncomfortably long and will only grow longer, and such a grouping is impractical and has no real use. It is far easier to browse videogames by genre, developer, year of development... So personally I think these alphabetical groupings are redundant. --Taelus (talk) 08:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Impractical and badly incomplete, there is no way to comfortably list 30 years of gaming in this fashion, and now we've gone full circle with the return of bedroom programming the numbers are going to explode. Someone another 09:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A valiant effort though it is, I concur with the view that this is simply too wide a scope. Creating a list for all of any type of broad media simply isn't maintainable and can't ever reach a comprehensive nature. This is better dealt with via our category system. -- Sabre (talk) 11:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all This list is no better than a category. If we want to see the names of blue links in alphabetical order, it's been done. Even at that, I'm not sure how much description you can give each game to make this worthwhile. Mandsford (talk) 12:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - couldn't agree more. Simple alphabetical listings should, imo, be mostly done away with. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 00:39, 10 June 2009 (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.