Deletion of Comparison of gaming platforms

Comment: As observed above, the nomination seems a clear case of , and a desperate attempt at arbitrarily disqualifying the PC as a gaming platform after simply removing it from the article failed. Hard to see |good faith in this. Any problems the article has (and I mean actual problems, not just "it was started by some people from a PC-focused subreddit") should be discussed on the talk page and fixed, instead of resorting to such drastic measures
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDLI||WP:GF)

Comment: I'm abstaining from this discussion due to my occasional participation on the PCMR subreddit, but I thought it would be prudent to alert everyone that posts claiming that this AfD is some effort to "censor the superiority of PC" are currently trending on both https://np.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/6zj3rn/nsfmr_this_morning_a_small_group_of_wikipedia/ /r/pcmasterrace and https://np.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/6ziil8/this_morning_a_small_group_of_wikipedia_editors/ /r/KotakuInAction. This is just a notification in case we get s on this though, please do not brigade those posts from our end. Let's remain the voices of reason here
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Single-purpose account (WP:SPA)

Comment: Bad faith nomination, attempted censuring of PC as a platform, deletion and edits (vandalism) does not conform to 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTCENSORED)

Comment: Delete. Delete. Emphatic delete, despite the fact that I don't ''ever remotely'' expect this or any of the dozens or scores of similar articles we have to ever actually get deleted. |Wikipedia is not a sales catalog. Wikipedia is not a place to go to find product recommendations or help deciding which console to buy. The place for that is literally anywhere else on the internet, besides the fact that this is nearly the very definition of  down to its core. Pull up the roots, strip off the fruit, dry up the branches, and make it wither
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTCATALOG||WP:SYNTH)

Comment: I'd like to remind that per , bad faith nomination should not be an argument for keep at this point, as the discussion above obviously show that there are legitimate concerns to the article's usefulness. As the nomination is is clearly valid, Please base the discussion on the worth of the article itself
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ATTP)

Comment: TJW said it better than I ever could. This is just  at its best (or worst, depending on how you look at it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: as the AfD appears to be borne out of , with little argument as to how it fails to be encyclopedic
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDLI)

Comment: Nominated under  if nothing else the edit history of the last 24-48 hours demonstrates one side would rather destroy an article of genuine encyclopedic worth than risk having to concede their position to the counter argument
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDLI)

Comment: This list is lacking scope and purpose. As it stands, the list compares platforms across several generations based on indiscriminate and arbitrary specifications from which no substantial conclusions can be drawn. These platforms were released years apart when the gaming industry was at various levels of maturity and different technologies were available, so trying to compare them in a sense of "which one is better" doesn't make sense. If the purpose for comparison is different, well unfortunately there is no prose nor any basis in |reliable sources that help explain to the reader what the purpose of the list is.  There IS value in comparing platforms to others in their generation, but it's not worth re-purposing the list in that sense because that would be duplication of the history of video games generation articles. Also, there IS value in articles discussing the value of PC, iOS, and Android as gaming platforms, but reducing that argument to a comparison table isn't valuable when those platforms are quite open-ended and don't have characteristics that are as easy to define as, say, the Dreamcast
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: I will be completely honest, this article has serious, but surmountable flaws. This article attempts to compare apples and oranges, insofar as comparing dedicated gaming platforms (XBox/Playstation/etc) to multi-use devices (PC/Mobile phones).  That being said, I see this RfD as being fueled by both  and .  istcruft does not apply under my interpretation as it does not neatly fit under any tenets that Listcruft is frequently used for.  is the only view I could see someone currently arguing on, but I strongly believe that this is not the case. The organization of the article needs to improve, perhaps going so far as to separate the article in dedicated platforms and co-opted ones, but the content is useful as a jump-off point and to show the diversity of gaming platforms.  I'm also confused by the seemingly incomplete list of platforms; the article has been active for four years yet seems mightily incomplete.  My only concern for the future of the article is the length of the list and useability concerns ten generations down the line.  We have the articles on "X Generation", but this could/should serve as a high-level, easily-digestible list. Overall, I believe defining "gaming platform" more rigidly would be in everyone's best interest
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDLI||WP:RUNNERUP||WP:L||WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: Note, I came here because of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Heads up on a heated AFD, not because I was canvassed, and have participated in hundreds of prior AfDs.) Could someone taking the delete position please explain, in detail why, the current article could not be improved instead of deleted? Also, a message to the Redditors: Thing are run quite differently on Wikipedia compared to Reddit, but if at least a few of you would be willing to learn how we do things here and help to improve the article, that would be a huge help. Please read  carefully before deciding
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)