Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Japanese board games

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 keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese board games

List of Japanese board games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail WP:LISTN. No evidence listing of this product type is anything but an OR-ish CATALOG. If there were sources, we could consider a merge to List of traditional Japanese games, which is a topic that does have some reasonable significance/coverage, but I don't see the topic of modern board games (which is most the list) from Japan being discussed outside some blogs and forum posts. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP 9 of the 10 things listed have their own articles, so its useful for navigation, thus a valid list article. The modern games couldn't be merged to the other list. Dream Focus 01:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that some of the items on that list are notable does not make the list pass LISTN, not unless you can show that they are other such lists out there (in reliable sources). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:WHYN Because these requirements are based on major content policies, they apply to all articles, not solely articles justified under the general notability criteria. They do not, however, apply to pages whose primary purpose is navigation (e.g. all disambiguation pages and some lists). Dream Focus 04:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This nomination is little more than a generic objection to list articles in principle, and therefore has no grounding in policy and is plainly incompatible with consensus practice. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 04:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I feel like this article meets WP:SALAT, due to its potential usefulness in navigation. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Dream Focus 15:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes WP:LISTN The links are present so the list aides our readers nav and info. Wm335td (talk) 02:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: WP:CATALOG says that we shouldn't post information about pricing or availability. It does not mean that articles or lists about commercial products are invalid. — Toughpigs (talk) 04:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: List meets WP:CLN. "The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping. ... Accordingly, these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others. ... Consider that lists may include features not available to categories, and building a rudimentary list of links is a useful step in improving a list. Deleting these rudimentary lists is a waste of these building blocks".   // Timothy :: talk  03:40, 22 August 2020 (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.