Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of yaoi games

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 merge to Yaoi. There was also the idea floated of creating Category:Yaoi games. I see no consensus on that, but if somebody also wants to create that, there's nothing here to stand in their way. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of yaoi 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)

Unneeded list of mostly red-linked articles that is not and cannot be in any way comprehensive of the genre, along with the only relevant information at the top being better suited on each article's page. Basically Listcruft. Tarage (talk) 19:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There are too many red-links, but that's a cleanup matter. There are enough blue links to justify a list on the topic, and there doesn't appear to be any other page on the genre that this could be merged with. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree. There are so few blue items that making a list of them is meaningless. Beyond that none of the information in the article is worth keeping. At best it should be moved to the respective games. --Tarage (talk) 10:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is another good point. I didn't want to say it in the opening statement because of the 'other stuff' argument but there is no Yuri list, nor for any other niche fetish. I agree whole heatedly that a category would serve much better, and that any relevant information from this article be transferred either to it's respecting game article or to the yaoi article itself. --Tarage (talk) 20:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 14:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 14:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 14:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 14:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 14:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why not fold it into the Yaoi article then? There sure as heck isn't enough in the pitiful amount of information that's currently there. --Tarage (talk) 01:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because yaoi is explicit sexual content. While all the games listed feature male homosexual relationship, they don't all include explicit sexual content. —Farix (t | c) 13:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "yaoi" or "yuri" implies explicit content, in any context. The article states "romantic OR sexual". All it means is that there is a gay relationship as the main focus.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification of position I am fine with merging. I just don't think a list of Yaoi games should exist in it's current form. Moving them into the LGBT games list and what little there is into the Yaoi article is perfectly fine with me. --Tarage (talk) 01:35, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:22, 5 January 2018 (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.