Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portrayal of women in video 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 no consensus. The article as it stands differs substantially from the article as nominated, but it's unclear that latecomers to the debate realized this. Mackensen (talk) 16:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portrayal of women in video games

~~Consists solely of unreferenced original research; cannot be kept in this form. Melsaran (talk) 16:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete per nom, I don't think this is so much research as unfounded speculation. Roadmr (t|c) 18:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There could be a good article in this... where else but in video games do you see teenage boys playing the role of a woman? But in this one we read about an "increasing trend", two games being "criticised" and that "many Japanese games" reward rape. If it doesn't get deleted, please tell us what else you've heard lately Mandsford 19:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Yes, this could become a very good article. But the person who created it has an obvious agenda and lacks the skill. Maybe it could be brought up to minimum standards, so that editors of more ability can make something of it. It's true that many Japanese games portray rape, look at the Wiki articles (or do other research) on dating sim, bishoujo games, and especially eroge. -- AvatarMN 19:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is the germ of a good article here, but in it's current state, it fails woefully on WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Needs major work to bring it from its current state of a barely started persuasive essay up to an encyclopaedic level. If anyone wants to work on it, then I'd say keep and expand, but in its current state it's a simple delete. Tx17777 20:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious; how's an article expected to be able to expand after its been deleted? Isn't it bad form, and an uphill battle, to undelete an article? -- AvatarMN 20:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm never one to dismiss an article with potential because of a current poor state. I'm saying that, if someone with the knowledge and time to turn this article into something useful is willing to expand it, then it would be worth keeping, but if that isn't the case and it shows no signs of being improved, then it should be deleted. Tx17777 20:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If someone with the knowledge and time to turn this article into something useful is willing to expand it, won't they be unable to because it's been deleted? The article's talk page shows that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Gender_Studies has expressed an interest, maybe they'll do something if it's not deleted. I'll alert them to this AFD. -- AvatarMN 21:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Video games - I saw this notice at Project Gender stdies. This is an interesting topic, it'd make a great book or article or thesis. However, this is not what wikipedia is for. Wikipedia is not here to publish any piece of research. WP is here to record notable phenomena, their histories and the reliably sourced, notable views on/about them. "The portrayal of women in video games" might make an interesting section in Video games but it is not notable enough for its own article. Also everything in this piece is original research e.g the piece about rape in Japanese games - its horrifying, and from what I can see about 177 (video game) its true - but we have zero reliable sources and zero verification of it. Wikipedia articles are not judged on their merit as interesting areas of research or on their truth value - they're judged on how well verified they are and how notable they are. This article has no verification and very very limited notability.
In short if anyone can find the book, do the research and write a NPOV piece put it into Video games, but this article has to go--Cailil ^talk 23:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of sexuality and gender-related deletions. —User:Cailil 23:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice to recreation of a sourced article, unless anyone wants to work on it imminently in which case rewrite. It looks like there has been enough written about the topic for an article [1] but the current version is a mess, full of unreferenced hearsay and probable original research, and not a good starting point, or the sort of thing we should keep around on the off-chance that someone might write a proper article one day. Find the sources, then write the article - not the other way round. Iain99 23:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Switching to keep - article is much improved since Kuronue's edits. Iain99 15:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone finds the time to delete the original research which fills the article, to find reliable sources which discuss the topic, and to basically write a new article. I believe some of the criticisms of the role of women in video games are reasonable. If it is deleted, a new and referenced article can certainly be created later. I recall the beginning of video games, and the graphics were a bit crude for them to be about raping womne or to be like Tomb Raiders. More like ping-pong, dungeon mazes. airplanes, miners, gorillas, & tanks. Edison 01:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article in its current form is entire WP:OR Corpx 04:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rework. The fact that its current incarnation is OR doesn't mean it lacks the potential to grow; I'm sure this has been the topic of many a published paper, and a worthy, sourced article can be created. Google Scholar lists plenty of papers for sources. [2] as most of the votes are delete due to lack of volunteers, I'll volunteer to work with it for a little while, get the ball rolling. Kuronue | Talk 00:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Violates WP:OR. Dean Wormer 04:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

how so? If you look at the work I've started to do, it's all sourced, all ideas from the papers I referenced Kuronue | Talk 04:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR. Keb25 12:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Striking nomination, article has been significantly expanded and properly sourced by Kuronue (well done!). Obviously, the subject is notable, but the revision at the time of the nomination ([3]) was unsourced OR. It looks like a fine article now, certainly eligible for expansion. Melsaran (talk) 15:53, 9 September 2007 (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.