Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of games containing time travel
and thanks to the two above keepers, regardless of how this turns out, I had given up). I'm with Micow and Colonel Warden here: this is a way of organizing notable topics, and has no verifiability problems (beyond giving a 1983 video game as the first time-travelling one and that's just one line). It's a long-standing convention, Wikipedia:NOR#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources|accepted in the three principles, that noncontroversial descriptions about a work may be sourced to the primary source of the work itself. It's vitally necessary as well: Have you ever tried writing an article about ''Romeo and Juliet'' without consulting the play at all, and restricting yourself to third parties' descriptions about the play? Me neither, and I'd rather not start. We could always shore up the article by adding quotes from the games, their manuals and where applicable their references, but that's not a necessity. Mentioned POV problems don't seem evident without further specification and anyway are an editing matter, not a deletion matter, unless they're fundamentally insurmountable a la Reasons why jews did WTC or something.The list is a surprisingly valuable navigation tool about a major concept. The two categories do ''not'' contain the same information and do not make the list redundant for the reasons described by Stormie, not to mention because it's the only way for readers to check if a particular method of time travel, an implementation of time travel in gameplay, or a space-time model has been done or is widespread without reading several dozen articles. It is also the kind of thing that's Wikipedia's particular strength: no similar list is readily, if at all, available elsewhere online. This is not to plead |usefulness, but it is valuable and should not be handled too lightly.Finally, this was made by a new user who did not do it prim and proper and could not be expected to be able to. There has been no effort to improve it or discussion about how to do so (I was busy with other matters, alas). The nominator has done neither and has not acknowledged the request for leaving a message before AfDing that I did leave sitting on the article's talk page. This seems like a shaky basis for deeming the article irredeemable. If it is not, I'd like to invite all concerned and interested editors who haven't spoken to suggest improvements on the article's talk page after this AfD is over
— User:Kizor, 11:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:USEFUL (Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions)