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. Daniel (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of cult video games[edit]

List of cult video games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Attempting to encapsulate what is wrong with this list and explain why it should be deleted is difficult. I have personally contributed to this list in the past but stopped because of issues I saw with it. In discussions off-wiki, other editors shared the same concerns I had, which is why I decided to nominate for deletion.

First it's important to understand that for a game to be included on the list, all that is required is for a reliable source to have called it a "cult" game or describe it as having a "cult following", using those exact words. It could be a trivial passing mention, doesn't matter. In practice, as long as the word "cult" is used describing a game, it has been considered fair for inclusion. This has resulted in lots of drive-by edits with people adding their favorite games because it was mentioned somewhere as a cult game.

The issue is: there is no solid definition of what a "cult video game" is, or what it means for a game to have a "cult following". Even the Wikipedia page for cult following doesn't seem to have a convincing definition. I'm not dismissing the claims by reliable sources that these games have cult followings; rather, I am saying that simply having a cult following does not create any meaningful relationship with another game that another source has also claimed to have a cult-following.

Let's look at the variety of games listed. You have games that were:

Per WP:LISTN, a common reason lists are deemed notable is because they are "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". You could argue that sources have published lists like "best cult games" etc. and you would right. This is why I made this long write up, because despite that, the issue remains: Why these games are considered cult games is not clear, so what you end up with is a list that serves no purpose and does not help the reader draw any meaningful conclusions. TarkusABtalk/contrib 21:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The problem is encapsulated here by your use of "I dislike the sources" and "I imagine users". The clear central principle of Wikipedia is that reliable sources determine page content, not individual editor's opinions. If multiple reliable third party sources say a game is "cult" or has "a cult following" then that is a fact as far as Wikipedia is concerned - even if it results in thousands of entries like the cult film lists. This simply smacks of certain editors wanting to delete the page because they personally disagree with the games being added even when there have multiple reliable supporting sources - in the case of Sensible Soccer, of the three sources provided, one was the BBC and a second was subtitled "The Cult of Sensible Soccer". I notice there was absolutely no attempt to delete the page or to remove titles like Capcom's Strider or Bionic Commando which have a single far weaker source, but then those games happen to be favoured by certain editors. MrMajors (talk) 08:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: The films list has been up for deletion before (three times, infact). I think there's a big difference between cult film and cult video game., however I don't play video games, so I might be talking out of my ZX81! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Complete disagreement. Different media with different levels of terminology usage and sourcing. That cult films survives does not act as a gate for cult video games to survive. It may be an indicator, but hardly an uncrossable line. -- ferret (talk) 12:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, it's not like it's used uniformly across all media. To use an extreme example, it's not like you'd use its use in film to justify a List of cult shoes or List of cult wrist watches. Sergecross73 msg me 15:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Cult" has been used numerous times in reliable sources to describe games in exactly the same manner as films. I don't think it's an apples and oranges situation. This AfD seems like a WP:LEADER situation with no one truly digging into whether RS mention that video games are cult (they do: Earthbound being prime evidence).ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone in this discussion claimed they don't? ApLundell (talk) 01:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And that would be a fine rationale if this were a debate on whether or not we should add the label to an individual article like Earthbound. Obviously occurrences of its use exists. (Humorously, I even found a source for my exaggerated watch example.) But this is an industry-spanning list we're debating here, and the problem is, as the nom outlines, that it's not used commonly or uniformly in definition in this industry. Sergecross73 msg me 23:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just a few days ago you were adamant that there was a "classic definition" which you were using to justify removing titles from the list. MrMajors (talk) 13:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As relates to film, sure. It's the best we have to go on for games, but it's not a perfect fit. Try not to take this so personally. Indrian (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2021 (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.