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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guinness World Records in video game[edit]

Guinness World Records in video game (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)

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Guinness World Records in music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Guinness World Records in films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly Keep - You've not given any reason why these are nominated. Guinness Records are most honorable records, so records in various sectors can be added, there's nothing wrong with this. Ratsama (talk) 13:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Ratsama (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

• See the responses below. It's a notable award, and that's why we've got an article about them at Guinness World Records. But us just regurgitating them in an article isn't how encyclopedia's work. Final Fantasy 7 is a notable video game too, but that doesn't mean we dump the game's script into an article called "Plot of Final Fantasy VII". Please read up at WP:NOT as far as many of the things that encyclopedia's don't do. This would be one of them. Sergecross73 msg me 14:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ratsama: Can you understand how it is problematic to essentially duplicate the contents of GWR here? GWR might not appreciate that as then people would have no reason to buy their books or consult their website. Eventually it would be seen as a copyright violation and be deleted anyway. 331dot (talk) 17:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - These articles aren't how Wikipedia entries are made. See WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I actually think it's a reasonably novel idea, but the current design doesn't even come close to suggesting the article is neccesary. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:48, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as this is not a directory. I've suggested to the user that pursuing a category of subjects listed in GWR might be a better approach. 331dot (talk) 14:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Individual Guinness entries would be appropriate on articles, but I would think that listing them all out in one place (which this list as the potential of) goes into copyvio territory as we have for things like Top 10 lists, since these are not purely "facts" (Guinness has to validate the record). --Masem (t) 14:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:COPYVIO. It is not our place to replicate all the Guinness World Records like this. They do that. That's their job. Not an encyclopedia's. If you want to find that information, go read their books or websites. Sergecross73 msg me 14:54, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Störm (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per above. MT Train^Discuss 06:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - These are dangerously toeing the line of copyright violation at best, and there's not really a unified subject. Apart from being under the same basic medium, these records are only related inasmuch as they were all published in the same source.--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - Clear case of unencyclopedic subjects ☆ Bri (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Great idea, honestly, but awful execution. Title, content, sourcing, it's just all unencyclopedic. Deleting per WP:NOTDIRECTORY is fine by me in this case, but I do definitely foresee a future for an article somewhat like this, especially with articles like this, this, and this. ~Mable (chat) 09:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. TheDeviantPro (talk) 11:55, 11 February 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.