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 no consensus. The arguments here generally circle around a subjective interpretation of whether this is maintainable, and whether this is superior to a category. In both cases arguments are split pretty evenly each way - no overall consensus to do anything in particular can be pulled from this discussion. ~ mazca ^talk 21:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of video games in development[edit]

List of video games in development (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTCRYSTAL, WP:NOTNEWS. Unmaintainable, Category:Upcoming video games exists. Would not be against splitting off the 2010 information to 2010 in video gaming. Otterathome (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Jonathan Hall (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — The page seems quite maintainable to me. Crystal doesn't apply, as we have citations for each. Directory similarly I would say doesn't apply, based on the fact that these are not minor games (if you must, they're notable, which should deflect Directory as a reason for deletion). NOTNEWS is for events already happened; there are many established cases where already known events that will happen have articles. As for the category reason given, WP:CLN. --Izno (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  You haven't explained how anyone can possibly maintain a list of all games the in the world in development, and removing them once they are released. It would be the same as having a List of upcoming films, List of upcoming singles or List of living people.--Otterathome (talk) 22:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Our job isn't to document every single one, only the notable ones (lucky us!). Besides, there is no necessity to document every single one, and in fact, I suspect the ones which have a date of release are the only ones on that page. Removal is simple in that once it's out... it's out. So we remove it.
  A list of upcoming films ye say? I see several! For the matter of Living persons, of course not. There's some 7 billion of us... I can guarantee you there aren't 7 billion games in development. That's simply an example of hyperbole. --Izno (talk) 22:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see any lists of upcoming films of all time.--Otterathome (talk) 14:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Several of the sections on a good few of the lists in that search bring up "Lists of all time". --Izno (talk) 14:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

&Otterathome: For Films :- 2010s in film. --SkyWalker (talk) 04:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a deletion of list of games in development of all time, not list of games in development in 2010 or any other specific time/date/year. If you can't be bothered to read the entire discussion don't bother adding your useless input in future. Thanks.--Otterathome (talk) 14:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – there is already a category for this, which is spewing the exact same information (if not more) than this list. This has nothing to do with notability. MuZemike 23:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The list makes sense as a supplement to Category:Upcoming video games. The number of announced notable games in development is quite limited and the information is easily verifiable through the games' pages and major gaming sites like Gamespot. From WP:LIST: Lists and categories are synergistic — the benefits of their redundancy are covered in WP:CLN. — Rankiri (talk) 23:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The only things different with this list and the category is that a citation and console to be released are provided. It's not providing any other function as a list. MuZemike 02:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There are other benefits; some people navigate via lists (usually the readers), some navigate via categories (you and I). --Izno (talk) 02:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:AOAL presents a number of examples where lists have clear advantages over categories. The list can also be improved in a number of ways. — Rankiri (talk) 02:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It is unmaintainable, to the extent that it's a list of notable games in development. Many games currently in development are not yet notable, simply because no one knows about them, or no one's played them yet. This is doomed to be mostly a list of sequels and movie tie-ins, or "list of games hyped before they're finished", it can never be a "list of games currently in development". The Category doesn't have the same problem, no one cares if a category is incomplete. Hairhorn (talk) 04:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Your concerns are understandable but dynamic lists are perfectly acceptable under WP:LIST. Most of the entries have Wikipedia pages that should theoretically pass WP:CRYSTAL, and, again, both this list and parts of 2009 in video gaming can be seen as a valid complements of Category:Upcoming video games. — Rankiri (talk) 12:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• My concern isn't that it's dynamic but that it will always be woefully, even laughably, incomplete. Hairhorn (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Would you support moving the list to 2010 in video gaming (see Category:Years in video gaming)? Most, if not all, of its entries are expected to be released in 2010 anyway, and the list will only get less speculative and more comprehensive with every passing day. — Rankiri (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I already said in the original nomination I wouldn't see anything wrong with merging the 2010 information to 2010 in video gaming. Call it merge/move if you like.--Otterathome (talk) 14:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notice the blue links? If the game is notable enough to have its own wikipedia article, then a list is appropriate, since it makes it easier to navigate. Some might be interested in what games are in development by major gaming studios. Dream Focus 06:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Why do we have a 2009_in_video_gaming? Some of those are well past due to be released, so the list needs constant updating. All games listed in development, should be in this article, and not shoved elsewhere. Dream Focus 14:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Because in theory, it can be finished by the end of the year. Whilst this article is an eternally changing list of ALL games in development.--Otterathome (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Adding new games to the list is easy. Changing the release dates on others, would be more troublesome. And since games seldom if ever finish on time, sometimes delayed for years, its best to just list them all here, under List of video games in development. Just list games that have been released there, by their release date, and those that haven't here under development. As it is now, you can't tell which games were released as scheduled or not, without having to click each link and see if someone updated it. Dream Focus 14:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  You've just shown how unmaintainable such a task would be. The way way you describe it makes it sound very WP:NOTNEWS too. Like 'we don't know when these games are going to be released, so lets just put them here until then'.--Otterathome (talk) 15:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - While it doesn't have a perfect list, which is quite funny, and isn't the best organized, I still find it useful. Noneofyour (talk) 15:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per Hairhorn. Crafty (talk) 03:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Well-referenced, only logical to have this to complement the xxxx in video gaming-articles. --MrStalker ^(talk) 09:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and renominate if it proves necessary The argument 'impossible to maintain' has never meant anything to me before. Probably another list such as this was proposed for deletion before, and editors have been parroting that phrase since without knowing what it really means. This is the definition of a time sink of dubious benefit. That said, maintenance, completeness, etc, are issues that are the privilege of mainspace editors and contributors to the discussion page, where AfD contributors must restrict their arguments to WP:DELETION and its attendant arguments. As long as there are editors who find this worth the time, and until maintenance can be definitely shown to be a problem, then there are no reasons to delete. Anarchangel (talk) 04:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete too concerned with future events to be truly encyclopedic. Buy a mag on the topic if it interests you, but WP is not a game fan mag. Yworo (talk) 02:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unmaintainable, with questionable advantages over categories. Mintrick (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as the things compiled on this list mostly have their own articles already, showing that there is indeed notability here. Additionally, WP:CRYSTAL refers to speculation, and many developers do release official information about their future releases. Finally, deleting something because it cannot be maintained is a poor reason. The article should be flagged for improvement if it needs it, not deleted because it may become out of date at times. --Taelus (talk) 23:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This page does not provide anything further than a category would. Triplestop x3 00:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But it does. It has additional columns containing information for each item in the list, which a catagory would not have. --Taelus (talk) 07:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep To answer some of the criticism above about the list and the category duplicating information, the list acts as a supplement to the category. The category acts as a way to automatically help index related articles, while the list provides a way to conveniently summarize key information about related subjects that can't be provided by categories, such as providing inline references to announced release dates and names of developers/publishers. Thus the category is useful for one type of task (eg automated searching of all the related articles) while the list is useful for another task (eg users browsing or sorting for articles on all games that are related by a given release date or publisher).

As far as being unmaintainable, that does not appear to be a problem since the number of upcoming notable games (ie games with their own Wiki articles) is smaller than, say, the number of books pending release. Also it should be kept in mind that the number of potential editors interested in editing video game topics is fairly large as video gaming is a popular topic, which likewise helps allow the article to be reasonably maintained. Thus you have a large number of potential editors to maintain a list that is, at most, a few hundred entries at any given time. (And, in fact, the number for the main article in question is far lower, since games in development for the current year are kept in a separate article.)

Finally the complaint that the article violates WP:NOTCRYSTAL is unfounded since all the information is well referenced and the article is not making specific, unverifiable predictions or analysis. 63.95.36.13 (talk) 18:46, 6 August 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.