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 per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). There is very clear consensus that this is a legitimate, discerning, discriminate topic of notability, supported by reliable sources, and is not the POV can of worms that some commentators have initially thought it might be. WilliamH (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Certainly there are games out there that are more critically panned than others, and some are just massive disappointments. And yes, anybody could easily say that this article has been well-referenced and sourced. But regardless, all of this information can be covered on their respective articles and therefore there isn't much point in keeping this article - which appears to be largely trivial and just a little POV. Valtoras (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep since it is a useful, and not indiscriminate, collection of information. 71.37.58.10 (talk) 18:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello IP 71.37.58.10. I was wondering if you could possibly explain how this list is useful, as to me it seems to be a very subjective trivial article. Valtoras (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - 1. Not indiscriminate. This list is not indiscriminate, in the sense that not everything could be on there: it has to have a sourced statement that the game is notable for negative reception. Sources like the most disappointing games are used, and are adequate. 2. The argument of the nominator rests on a single point: "all of this information can be covered on their respective articles". This point is blatantly false and goes against the reason to have lists like List of Chinese philosophers, List of topics in philosophy of mind and Films considered the greatest ever at all. I suggest the nominator gives WP:Lists a good read. I also suggest the nominator withdraws because the debate is unlikely to have a different conclusion than the last one, but this really is just a suggestion, unlike the rest of this argumentation, which has a pressing and generally not nice tone. User:Krator (t c) 20:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

consensus can change, the afd may result in the criteria being change or significant edits. --neonwhite user page talk 20:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • If that were all true, wouldn't video games that have been considered the greatest ever survived deletion? Certainly it likely had more issues, but generally speaking a major re-write would have sufficed if Wikipedia wanted to keep such lists. Valtoras (talk) 05:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep It has clear criteria the problem is that 'negative' is subjective and some of it seems to consist of original interpretations of reviews which is in violation of WP:NOR. A rescue may be possible if enough source are available but it looks like it needs alot of work and alot of the page may have to be removed. --neonwhite user page talk 20:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article is well referenced and sourced, any clean-up work needed should be highlighted so it can be done. There's nothing in WP:INDISCRIMINATE which stands against this list, in letter or spirit, the list is an answer to a perfectly reasonable question. Putting the information into individual articles destroys a line of research and benefits nobody. Anyone needing that information would quickly give up Wikipedia if they had to check each game article for titles released on major platforms from here right the way back to the Atari 2600 era. Someoneanother 21:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I believe that this article can have (and largely has) a reasonable limit on its scope and acceptable sourcing for its facts. Acceptable sourcing takes care of POV concerns, and having an index on the subject definitely adds to WP's utility for game designers, retrogamers, gaming historians and people who are just interested on the subject. The advantage of this article over the same thing in category form is not all that large, but the ability to reference entries is enough of a justification. While we're on the subject, how about listing the genres of games in the article to ease comparisons? --Kizor 21:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for much the same reasons as last time. As long as each entry is sourced, and as long as no cherry-picking of sources occurs, there should be no concerns with POV, and I don't believe there are at present. And it's a legitimate subject; there are similar articles on films etc. It's a shame that more editors don't contribute though, as there's a "requirement" that potential new entries must be discussed on the talk page prior to being allowed, and some don't even get replies, but still. Miremare 22:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I concur with the arguments raised above and last time around. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 02:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There isn't a real reason given for deleting this article. It's referenced and sourced and I don't see the problem with it. Nick mallory (talk) 10:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Provided every statement is properly attributed, and any entry lacking inline citations is removed. Taemyr (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep My gut reaction was that this was going to a POV ridden article. But I'm surprised that it's relatively fair. The article seems to be well-monitored to keep POV stuff off, and to work with reliable research. I think this is a legitimate and clear topic supported by reliable research in a few instances. I want to knock it but I can't. Really, this article just needs more references like the ones it already has. Randomran (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It's the first time I participate on a AFD vote, but I have a good argument to defend the article. Lists are important, even if they're controversial; if this article is deleted, then List of best-selling video games and others should be deleted for the same reasons. I mean, we know there are controversial or tabooed topics, but please, don't permit that to take risky decisions while editing Wikipedia. How many times this article has to be nominated for deletion before you can understand that? Sometimes deletion is not the answer, you know.--Twicemost (talk) 23:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello Twicemost, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your imput in this deletion discussion. However, just because an article was nominated for deletion before, doesn't mean it can't, or shouldn't, be nominated again. Discussion and consensus are the backbone of this project, and consensus can easily change over time. It is clear that the consensus for this discussion is highly likely to be keep due to not being overtly POV and for having mostly reliable sources, something I'm 100% fine with. In my eyes, it seemed to be a trivial list that did nothing to really construct the encyclopedia, but I understand and concur with the contributors to this discussion. But again, thank you very much for your contributions, I very much appreciate it. :) Valtoras (talk) 05:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and possible move to "Video games noted for negative reception". But I understand the nominator's concerns. The bar has to be very clear for this kind of article. There should not be just verifiable sources blasting the games, but verifiable sources noting that other sources have blasted the game (some Worst Ever lists), or that the game was a prominent commercial failure (E.T.), or that the game sparked outrage (Columbine). Otherwise we just get "Video games somebody sometime somewhere didn't like" loaded with all kinds of original research. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 12:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - "indiscriminate" means "indiscriminate", not "I don't get it" - David Gerard (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per clear consensus in previous AfD, discriminate topic, notable (even in article's title!), and verifiable. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Sometimes games are notable because they are good. Other times, they are notable because they are appalingly bad. For balance, both should be remembered equally. Also, I think it's starting to snow.Gazimoff ^Write_Read 09:34, 7 May 2008 (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.