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 keep. Wellp. That's a solid consensus if I ever saw one. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of video games notable for negative reception[edit]

List of video games notable for negative reception (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a POV fork when "notable for" is an inherently subjective description (rendering it inappropriate for an article title in the first place per WP:Neutral point of view) plus people will impose their own criteria for what is/isn't worth including. Any details on poor reviews are better for the games' individual pages. That's better having than a compilation of cherry-picked titles. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 00:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:NLIST. A clunky title is not sufficient justification for deleting an article such as this. I suggest a rename to list of video games considered the worst, modeled after list of films considered the worst. KidAd • SPEAK 04:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• There's in fact much discussion on on the talk page (/its archives) about why it's called what it's called and even more discussion about the actual criteria for it. In fact the article isn't actually about the "considered worst" games, the title reflects the content. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• At the very least, it could be renamed to "List of video games known for negative reception" or "List of video games noted for negative reception" (which would be more encyclopedic without editorializing), but that wouldn't resolve the issue of how selective the page is. Whoever decided on the page's current "List of video games notable for negative reception" title made a big mistake and should've gone with a different choice. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Even going beyond NLIST, there is notable interest in the "worst games of all time" eg The Guardian, GamesRadar, for example. Of course that's a POV title and thus located to here. Further, the list is careful to avoid games that are expected to be bad (like shovelware or mobile games), and thus the list is more curated to games that have a known reputation for being poor, and not simply because of their low review score or the like; hence why it is called "games notable for negative reception" --Masem (t) 06:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • And to be clear, those of us that edit that page are careful about what is added to it, as to avoid that cherry picking. We're trying to go by sourcing that affirms the intent of the list, and while there are games that are considered bad or worse out there becuase of low review scores, we don't include those just because of low scores - we're looking for long-term reputation as bad games, which helps to make sure this list says on topic and not cherry picking. --Masem (t) 06:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per reasonings provided by editors who have commented before me. The only rationale I could identify from the nominator's rationale is, I don't like it. Haleth (talk) 08:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not at all my rationale. I was basing it off of WP: Content forking#Point of view (POV) forks (WP:POVFORK). The title just emphasizes this page's biased nature even more (i.e. only picks certain games that got poor reviews and not others even when many games not included also had unfavorable reception). Keeping it around (especially with the current name) is just enabling neutrality problems. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • But it's not a fork. -- ferret (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • SNUGGUMS, according to the content guideline you linked to, a POV fork is defined as another version of the article or another article on the same subject. Could you point us to what you believe to be the original or legitimate version of this article, or another article somewhere in Wikipedia about the same subject? And going by your own definition of a biased article, you may also find List of video games considered the best to be unacceptable, since the contents are also defined based on an arbitrary set of inclusion criteria set by editors themselves (minimum of 6 lists by 6 different publications) which you decried as biased in your rationale and subsequent responses. Your thoughts? Haleth (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not to delve too far into WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS territory, but that other page at least uses some attribution within its title (signifying it is what critics consider top-tier games). A minimum of six publications sounds random. Focusing back on this list, I'm not sure where exactly it first was supon off from aside from somebody compiling games that overall got poor reviews. Any instance it may have been more legitimate must've been before September 2012 (where its current name was implemented), and that was also problematic with its WP:EDITORIALIZING (namely the "notably negative reception" bit) in the opening sentence. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am aware that you don't like to discuss further per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but it is a valid question because in your rationale, you are alleging that it is a POV content fork, which means it is forked from another existing article to give undue weight to a point of view, so I have asked you to point us to another article which it is allegedly forked from. Citing an older version of the article which is more agreeable with your subjective view on what constitutes a legitimate inclusion criteria that is compliant with Wikipedia guidelines or policies, in fact gives other editors more reason to believe that the issue is of an editorial nature. It is inappropriate to deal with an editorial dispute by subjecting the article to an AfD. Haleth (talk) 06:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • For what it's worth, that old diff I linked was preferable to what we have now when it didn't generally exclude titles based on category, developer, or systems they were available on. By removing the one editorializing sentence and going back to a previously used title of "List of video games considered the worst" (which provided some attribution for the view on these listings), that would be something better to work with. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • Let's compare to List of films considered the worst, which has similar criteria to omit certain classes of films and focus only on those that have professional production. This list's criteria that omits indie games, tie-in licensed games, and phone games is the same type of thing since these are treated with the same "lack of respect" in terms of proper coverage in RSes as amateur-produced films - meaning that maybe exceptionally one of these will be called out, but most of the time they slip under the radar and while you may get one or two sources that note that game as bad, it is again unfair to include that among games with numerous sources. Now the question is, why not name this list "List of video games considered the worst" and that said, not all these games are necessary "the worst" but that they do carry strong negative perceptions, and as we know there are games with even worst scores/critical reviews, that would be a flawed title. --Masem (t) 16:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • • While "List of video games considered the worst" might not be the best name (there's the idea of "List of video games noted for negative reception"), I'm not going to pretend the one currently used is neutral or any better. It also doesn't feel appropriate to leave out entries based on characteristics that are irrelevant to critics' opinions. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per others. The deletion rationale is inherently flawed, as wide critical agreement is anything but POV._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per above. Whether a game is bad is subjective, but there is no disputing the fact that all the games in the article's list are known primarily for their poor quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.49.2 (talk • contribs)
• Comment I would like to see more refs based on real "official" ( = based secondary sources) lists of games with negative reception (article/lists about more than one or two games); otherwise this will always be OR to some extent, even if the editors do their best to define and "enforce" the criteria. WikiHannibal (talk) 12:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - whilst I understand what you are trying to say, these games have been severely criticised by multiple sources, and the topic as a whole appears to be notable enough, at least to me. Foxnpichu (talk) 13:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per some recent comments, I suggest a Speedy Keep since it is basically SNOW at this point. Foxnpichu (talk) 22:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per others. No idea what the nom means by the list being a "POV fork" (it's not), this comes off as WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:DINC. The topic of "worst games ever made" is clearly notable, as evident by the amount of proper citations both in the article and what can be found through Google and the WikiProject's custom reliable source search engine. Namcokid47 16:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• In case I hadn't already made it obvious, I was saying this is a POV fork based on how it involves people picking and choosing what they think should be highlighted for their negative reception. The sheer number of references isn't my concern, and as I mentioned above, it is NOT an WP:IDONTLIKEIT stance. If one wants to focus on a "worst games" topic, then having a page titled "List of video games considered the worst" would at least be more neutral. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• But again, it's not a fork. It simply isn't. It's a list that passes WP:LISTN and has a clearly defined inclusion criteria decided by consensus, as per WP:LISTCRIT. -- ferret (talk) 16:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The criteria used is questionable when the lead openly admits that this tends to omit mobile games, indie games, and "licensed tie-in games for movies or television shows". It comes off as a "those games don't matter" sort of ordeal. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• You're free to challenge the criteria, of course. Still not a deletion rationale. -- ferret (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• And the reason we generally omit those games is because they don't get wide coverage but may have one or two reviews that call them bad, and it would be unfair to list those alongside games that have multiple reviews and other RS sources that clearly outside the negative reception of the game. Sometimes one of those exclusions will make it (like Superman 64) but this is the exception, not the rule. --Masem (t) 20:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I agree with the others. Bad video games are notable and sometimes they have really interesting stories as to why the game turned out in the end. Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Faulty deletion rationale. List is not a fork. List clearly meets WP:LISTN. It is not an arbitrary list of items, it has a defined inclusion criteria on the talk page per WP:LISTCRIT. AFD is not cleanup. AFD is not a venue to argue that the page title may need changed. I fail to see how "negative reception" is less neutral than "worst games" besides. -- ferret (talk) 16:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am genuinely confused by this nomination. Notability is not subjective, or at least that is a central assumption of AfD in general (or at least, we assume that notability can be a matter of consensus). The list appears to have, as one of its primary criteria, a requirement that these games be notable specifically for wide RS coverage of their negative reception. In other words, it's not obscure games or bad games, but games that were prominent or anticipated or controversial or for some other reason received widespread coverage, and that coverage was negative. That strikes me as being literally the definition of the sort of lists that we want. If there is an issue with the title, or an issue with the criteria for inclusion, or an issue over whether certain other titles should be included, those are properly issues for the talk page. In fact, I may start following that talk page because I can imagine that this would lead to some excellent and fascinating discussion. Hyperion35 (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW. Panini!^🥪 13:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep, per WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:SNOW. JOEBRO64 16:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I also want to clarify the concept of Forking. Forking involves taking a parent topic, and creating a new article about some part of that topic, for the purposes of getting around POV or Undue Weight or other restrictions. Often this is done when we have an article on a scientific topic, where there is general consensus among reliable sources in ths scientific community, but where there is some "controversy" or disagreement in public discourse, perhaps due to political or religious views. Wikipedia guidelines normally mandate placing a small section near the end to note that such beliefs exist, where their due weight allows only a few neutral sentences, if that. Sometimes editors get around this by Forking, creating a separate "controversies" page, where they can give undue weight to fringe views and pretend that they are merely "covering the controversy" rather than pushing a specific POV. This is what the rules on Forking exist to prohibit, the use of forked articles for the purpose of evading Wikipedia guidelines. In this case, the games on this list already have to meet a standard that is actually more stringent than Wikipedia would require simply to include a game on any list, therefore it is not and cannot be a Fork from some other list of video games for the purposes of evading Wikipedia guidelines. Hyperion35 (talk) 19:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly meets WP:LISTN.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 00:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There's a long history of this article, and similar ones, being kept at AFD. As others have noted, this nomination is baffling and ill-conceived. It should have already been abundantly clear that articles like this need fixing, not blowing up. Sergecross73 msg me 00:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - All of the games on this list are considered notable enough for their own list, and the old title calling them the "worst games ever" would be innaccurate; yes, many of these games like Big Rigs and E.T. 2600 are definately fitting for a "worst" list, but this list covers games that caused effects in the gaming industry (i.e., Star Wars Battlefront 2 '17). AlexField290 (talk) 02:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not a POVFORK as the nom claimed it to be. If they think there are issues about the inclusion criteria they should propose changes in its talk page. "Worst game of all time" has been and always will be a valid topic. enjoyer|talk 02:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- not 'speedy', that's a separate thing to the clause being invoked, but it sure does look like a snowstorm out here. I wouldn't usually comment on an AfD this overwhelming, but I ran into it while looking at the article and was so shocked I recused myself from the reader role back to the editor one. Vaticidalprophet 04:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - If we have "list of games considered best" and "list of movies considered worst", I feel it wouldn't be redundant to have "video games known for bad reviews" Sergei zavorotko (talk) 02:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We have lists of worst other types of media, so why not video games? Also, meets WP:NLIST. Melmann 11:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:SNOW. This clearly isn't going to go anywhere, and I really don't see the point of just outright detonating the article because it has some problems. Maybe a page move would work better? Sincerely, Deauthorized. (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• A page move would certainly be an improvement. It would only fix part of the problem, though. After that's carried out, there's still an issue of cherry-picking among unfavorably reviewed games on a dubious basis. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• As several people have pointed out, disagreements over issues like inclusion criteria are best dealt with on the article's talk page. AfD would only make sense if the inclusion criteria did not comply with existing notability criteria, but in this case the list's inclusion criteria incorporate and are more stringent than the GNG. Hyperion35 (talk) 21:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – This list includes only video games that are notable enough to be considered "bad" games by multiple reliable sources, not by few people without reliable sources. There are plenty of "bad" games around the internet, but many of them aren't notable enough by multiple media to be included in this list. As long the games included in this list are notable, it meets WP:NLIST. Stylez995 (talk) 22:50, 10 April 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.