This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article is eclipsed by articles such as 2003 in video gaming and similar. Pagrashtak 00:44, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete in agreement with nominator. Parent articles such as Computer games can link to each of the year-in-v-g articles directly without any need for this list, nor for what this list's title could also mean. It's not like the topic were List of years in epic poetry or something like that with thousands of possible list items (years). Barno 01:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Couldn't this be made into something like List of years in television? - SimonP 02:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per SimonP. Kappa 05:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. This could be a useful reference when expanded to include more years and titles. – AxSkov (☏) 06:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per SimonP & AxSkov Anetode 09:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; to be worthy of a keep vote, this should be massively expanded. JDH Owens ^{talk | Esperanza}]] 10:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and give it time to expand. Good idea. Sam Vimes 12:25, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Could possibly grow into something worthwile, but right now - at least in my opinion - it is a pretty worthless article that doesn't add anything of value. Everything listed could be said in the individual articles for the games mentioned. Part of the problem is that unlike List of years in television, this list has no historical context; just a few games that may or may not be of any significance in 10 years. Where is Pong or Space Invaders or Counterstrike? What about Atari 2600 or Nintendo Entertainment System? I'll give it a couple of days to see if someone wants to pick this up and expand it, otherwise I'll vote delete.--Isotope23 18:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are now in the article. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 20:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep lots of articles hang around for months before someone takes them under their wing. List of publications in philosophy sat around for over a year before it became at all interesting. But now, its at least somewhat complete. Why are we in such a hurry to delete an article that we agree has potential? Who's it hurting by being incomplete? Just put the {{expand list}} template on it, and leave it alone. Trust the wiki... --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 20:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I enjoyed the article and the links!DannyZz 23:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No problem with this article. Alf ^melmac 19:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks like in 90s there was nothing interesting in the world of computer gaming at all. Crazy. Surely Quake was more groundbreaking than CS.  Grue  17:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This at least has real potential to develop.--Pharos 06:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per SimonP & AxSkov
• Keep. ··gracefool |☺ 18:25, 25 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.