Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Video games notable for negative reception

:{{la|Video games notable for negative reception}} – (View AfD)(View log)

Delete article that is too broad for words. Any inclusion criteria will be subjective, open to opinion. Every game gets a negative reception from somebody. Shoester 05:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC) Alternative suggestion: Rename. Return to the name under which it survived four previous AfD discussions: List of video games considered the worst ever. Shoester 07:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Per above, such a list would be impossible to upkeep. faithless (^speak) 06:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

:Weak Keep I admit I didn't really give the article much of a chance. The word "notable" is key here. I'm still not crazy about the article, but don't see any especially good reason to delete. faithless (^speak) 07:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Too broad, and too much opinion/POV. RobJ1981 06:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Note that this article has survived deletion [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Video_games_notable_for_negative_reception four times]. No, that doesn't make the article an automatic keep, but the nom has a responsibility to mention those things. I would like to address the claim that "every game gets a negative reception from somebody." That may be true, but only a select few games are notable for negative reception, like the Atari 2600 ET game. In that case, I'm sure someone could find reliable sources that actually document the fact that there was widespread disappointment with that game, and not just one or two negative reviews from video game critics. Zagalejo 07:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

:Yes, it has survived, but we should point out that it had a different name that was easier to pin down during all four previous nominations. "Considered the worst ever" has problem*s but not nearly as many as "notable for negative reception". "Worst ever" is far more specific than "negative reception". As with the list of films considered the worst ever, we just have to provide good sources (specific sources agreed upon in the article) which rank a game among the worst ever or outright call it the worst. "Negative reception" is nebulous. Wryspy 07:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

:Note: The similarly named Films notable for negative reception survived an AfD on the condition that it revert back to the name Films considered the worst ever.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Films_notable_for_negative_reception] Wryspy 08:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Rename 'Video games notable for negative reception' is a terrible title for an article, it sounds like some sort of hideous PC newspeak. This page should (a) go back to previous title, 'List of video games considered worst ever', and (b) use the same criteria as the similar films considered the worst ever (citations, collosal financial failure, et al). PolarisSLBM 13:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 11:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Notable, POV content could be fixed. Cocoma 13:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Rename as per PolarisSLBM - who moved the article under this awkward title anyway? -- Andrew (My talk) 13:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Rename While "worst" suggest that it must be very terrible title, "notable for negative reception" is too board. L-Zwei 14:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. M.V.E.i. 15:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, because as long as they can be referenced and the article remains coherently organized, then the article will be able to assert notability and not become unwieldly. Perhaps renaming would be a good idea as well as suggested above? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Nothing's allowed on the list if it's not referenced and its inclusion not agreed upon on the talk page anyway, and if there's any POV in the article, I haven't seen it. I'm also not sure about moving to "worst ever". How many, since E.T., have been described in these terms (and can be referenced as such)? "Notable for negative reception" may be broad, but the list doesn't suffer from having merely average games included, and "worst ever" seems far too narrow. Miremare 19:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep & Rename (Note: This is the third comment I'm making on this AfD) I say "Weak" because I'm still not crazy about these articles, be they about video games, movies, whatever. But it seems that I'm outnumbered on this point. As for the article, it is well written and (more importantly) well sourced. So while I don't especially agree that the topic is encyclopedic, it passes all other criteria. "Rename" because "negative reception" is incredibly broad; what exactly makes a game notable for a negative reaction? One bad review? Two? How bad does the review have to be, and who has to make it for it to be notable? "Worst ever" is a better name simply because it's far more specific, and has a specific criterion for inclusion. faithless (^speak) 21:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Interesting article, and appropriate.Snowfire51 06:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Absolutely keep. These games are famous for being bad. Though I'd recommend a name change. Something like "Games famous for bad reception" or "Games famous for being bad" or something. Or what it used to be, "considered the worst ever." Toastypk 19:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Let this one survive five times. Since "Death Race 2000" in 1974, there have been video games that outraged the public, and there have been notable failures along the way. This is an excellent article about the public reaction to the product rather than the product itself. Whether you like 'em or hate 'em, videogames -- which generally require no translation --- are in a unique position of being part of culture worldwide, and an important part of cultural history. 65.207.127.12 22:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, possibly rename back to the old name or think of a better name for similar articles. It seems the nominator's big beef is that the title doesn't adequately describe the scope and method of the list; in this case, we really need to either a) come up with a title that does describe the scope and method of these articles, or b) stop complaining, explain the scope and method in the article in the lead, and worry only about external consistency with other similar articles. However, neither solution needs deletion, and I think we've already established in previous AfDs that we can build the article the way we do: Take a bad video game and point to a number of bad reviews that explain the badness. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and rename This is certainly a legitimate article with a strong concept and rather specific inclusion criteria, and the great majority of the article is sourced to show that these games are considered among the worst ever released. -- Kicking222 02:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep No further comments to add. -Gohst 08:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep, but rename The article itself is fine, but title needs to be changed. Pretty much, we're throwing in Daikatana because it was overhyped. What about Fable? It was overhyped, yet we have no article for that. Hell, there are millions of games we can throw on here simply because of hype or what sites say. Rename, but still keep. Aramjm 01:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

: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.