- 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. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 12:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
List of .io Games
- List of .io Games ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not a notable or sensible list: apparently it's about games with names that end in the country code ".io". Other than that, they do not seem to have anything in common. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- I've looked through the sources before the list was nominated and decided to be neutral on the topic. ".io games" is a real topic. What exactly the overlap is between such games is vague. Touch Arcade seems to suggest that .io games are games in which "you'll be competing with other players in a shared world to be the most powerful player at any given time." Pocket Gamer tells the reader that they are probably "sick of .io games", noting that they are addictive. Kill Screen mentions that something is an .io game. Then there are the websites I've never heard of before: Dailygame.net has an article on "the wide world of .io games" and The Koalition has an article about browser games in general with a strong focus on .io games. As you can see, these sources are weak. The list can be really useful to quickly describe .io games that are noted by very few sources, but again, the issue is that many of these sources are just really weak... ~ Mable ( chat) 10:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hi @
Maplestrip, if that's the case, shouldn't there be an article about the concept of ".io game" exist, before there can be a list of .io games?
soetermans.
↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- A list of works falling under a certain type can cover that if not much is to be said about the topic. I'd imagine an article titled .io game or .io games wouldn't cover any more information than this list would optimally do. To clarify, I think this list needs a "background" or "description" section, but I doubt that it can be very long. Removing the whole list would leave very little content. I personally think the list format would be the best way to handle this subject, though I am sad that the sources are so weak. ~ Mable ( chat) 10:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Another article from Koalition [1] talks about .io games in general and characterizes them as multiplayer games. It would be easy to miss the link in the first sentence to the article about the domain name .io. That article does not make it clear why games developers would choose that domain, which if sourceable might help us to fill in the background to this topic. Not ready to vote keep yet, but it's my feeling that this is definitely a "thing" and that since we pride ourselves on coverage of this topic area, we should try to save this if possible : Noyster (talk), 11:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hi @
Maplestrip, if that's the case, shouldn't there be an article about the concept of ".io game" exist, before there can be a list of .io games?
soetermans.
↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. : Noyster (talk), 12:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. : Noyster (talk), 12:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - Kind of leaning towards Soeterman's stance here. We shouldn't have a list article when we don't even have an article on the subject itself. The current set up is terrible: There's no parent article, and the list article doesn't define what its even listing off. Its also usually a bad sign if almost every item in the list doesn't have its own article. Not exactly sure how to word it in terms of an AFD stance, and there's a number of ways of to go about doing it, but I basically think that 1) the list should not exist (yet at least), but the sourcing shows that 2) an article could exist on the topic, should one actually write an article on it.
Sergecross73
msg me 13:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- An article on
.io game may end up as a permastub, though, or at most a short start-class. Not that we have to create such a thing any time soon. ~
Mable (
chat) 17:46, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- If there's that little to be said on it, then I'm not sure its worth having a list article for it either... Sergecross73 msg me 20:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- An article on
.io game may end up as a permastub, though, or at most a short start-class. Not that we have to create such a thing any time soon. ~
Mable (
chat) 17:46, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- There's no requirement on gaming companies to keep .io games restricted to a particular genre, or even for there only to be games in the .io TLD (I expect .io is used by other types of sites). So from this point of a view, this is a very loose collection, at best. -- Izno ( talk) 16:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. No articles for the individual games, no notability. This list could go on forever, adding one non-notable game after the other, and it would be as useful and encyclopedic as a List of red Volkswagens in the Netherlands (1950 - 1965). Game over. Yintan 19:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete list article - per my comments above - as most entries do not have their own article. No prejudice towards creating an article about the subject itself if the sourcing can be scrounged up sufficiently, and maybe even splitting it off into a list article if the main article got too long someday. But its not really warranted right now... Sergecross73 msg me 20:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete not a product guide. To me, an analogy might be something like "list of car models starting with the letter P" or somesuch. Not encyclopedic at all. W Nowicki ( talk) 17:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 12:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
List of .io Games
- List of .io Games ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not a notable or sensible list: apparently it's about games with names that end in the country code ".io". Other than that, they do not seem to have anything in common. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- I've looked through the sources before the list was nominated and decided to be neutral on the topic. ".io games" is a real topic. What exactly the overlap is between such games is vague. Touch Arcade seems to suggest that .io games are games in which "you'll be competing with other players in a shared world to be the most powerful player at any given time." Pocket Gamer tells the reader that they are probably "sick of .io games", noting that they are addictive. Kill Screen mentions that something is an .io game. Then there are the websites I've never heard of before: Dailygame.net has an article on "the wide world of .io games" and The Koalition has an article about browser games in general with a strong focus on .io games. As you can see, these sources are weak. The list can be really useful to quickly describe .io games that are noted by very few sources, but again, the issue is that many of these sources are just really weak... ~ Mable ( chat) 10:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hi @
Maplestrip, if that's the case, shouldn't there be an article about the concept of ".io game" exist, before there can be a list of .io games?
soetermans.
↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- A list of works falling under a certain type can cover that if not much is to be said about the topic. I'd imagine an article titled .io game or .io games wouldn't cover any more information than this list would optimally do. To clarify, I think this list needs a "background" or "description" section, but I doubt that it can be very long. Removing the whole list would leave very little content. I personally think the list format would be the best way to handle this subject, though I am sad that the sources are so weak. ~ Mable ( chat) 10:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Another article from Koalition [1] talks about .io games in general and characterizes them as multiplayer games. It would be easy to miss the link in the first sentence to the article about the domain name .io. That article does not make it clear why games developers would choose that domain, which if sourceable might help us to fill in the background to this topic. Not ready to vote keep yet, but it's my feeling that this is definitely a "thing" and that since we pride ourselves on coverage of this topic area, we should try to save this if possible : Noyster (talk), 11:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hi @
Maplestrip, if that's the case, shouldn't there be an article about the concept of ".io game" exist, before there can be a list of .io games?
soetermans.
↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. : Noyster (talk), 12:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. : Noyster (talk), 12:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - Kind of leaning towards Soeterman's stance here. We shouldn't have a list article when we don't even have an article on the subject itself. The current set up is terrible: There's no parent article, and the list article doesn't define what its even listing off. Its also usually a bad sign if almost every item in the list doesn't have its own article. Not exactly sure how to word it in terms of an AFD stance, and there's a number of ways of to go about doing it, but I basically think that 1) the list should not exist (yet at least), but the sourcing shows that 2) an article could exist on the topic, should one actually write an article on it.
Sergecross73
msg me 13:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- An article on
.io game may end up as a permastub, though, or at most a short start-class. Not that we have to create such a thing any time soon. ~
Mable (
chat) 17:46, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- If there's that little to be said on it, then I'm not sure its worth having a list article for it either... Sergecross73 msg me 20:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- An article on
.io game may end up as a permastub, though, or at most a short start-class. Not that we have to create such a thing any time soon. ~
Mable (
chat) 17:46, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- There's no requirement on gaming companies to keep .io games restricted to a particular genre, or even for there only to be games in the .io TLD (I expect .io is used by other types of sites). So from this point of a view, this is a very loose collection, at best. -- Izno ( talk) 16:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. No articles for the individual games, no notability. This list could go on forever, adding one non-notable game after the other, and it would be as useful and encyclopedic as a List of red Volkswagens in the Netherlands (1950 - 1965). Game over. Yintan 19:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete list article - per my comments above - as most entries do not have their own article. No prejudice towards creating an article about the subject itself if the sourcing can be scrounged up sufficiently, and maybe even splitting it off into a list article if the main article got too long someday. But its not really warranted right now... Sergecross73 msg me 20:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete not a product guide. To me, an analogy might be something like "list of car models starting with the letter P" or somesuch. Not encyclopedic at all. W Nowicki ( talk) 17:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- 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.