Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of video games notable for positive reception

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. Consensus agrees that the criteria is way too broad or hardly any at all for inclusion. "Real and encyclopedic" isn't a valid criteria for keeping, but as Mike Agricola and a few of the delete comments said, if a suitable and consensus based version of the list is created, there is no prejudice for recreation. Willing to WP:USERFY. Secret ^account 20:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of video games notable for positive reception

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

Presumably created as a counterpoint to List of video games notable for negative reception. While I wouldn't challenge the existence of the latter, each entry here is mostly cut-and-paste from the "reception" section of the respective article. These games aren't notable for being great; they just have mostly positive reviews. Just as we don't have a list of "Highly rated films" or "highly rated albums," this list doesn't make sense either. (We do have articles on top-grossing movies/albums/singles, but that's a much more objective criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Rename As with List of video games notable for negative reception, the subject is real and encyclopedic. Both articles are going to be magnets for low quality contributions from editors who don't understand the scope of the subject, but that's not something an AfD can address. Personally, I would favor changing the title to List of video games considered the best (comparable to List of films considered the best). This would, I think, make the subject more readily understood without excluding anything that currently belongs. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to List of video games considered the best to match List of films considered the best. Then the article could focus on only games which e.g. make the #1 spot on "list of the best games ever made" lists. As the article stands, any game that ever received a 10/10 score would qualify for inclusion. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That makes more sense, but 10/10 by who's criteria? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is precisely the problem with the article as it stands which is why I recommend moving it to a new title/topic. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Note: This would also neatly resolve a request that was made in June 2012. -Thibbs (talk) 15:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep May need a complete overhaul, but the topic is notable and the presentation of this in list format is justified by the appearance of many "top 10"-sort video game lists. The trick here is coming up with reasonable inclusion criteria, which can be discussed on the article's talk page. Them From Space 22:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the concept of a positively received game is of course notable and worth writing about, the inclusion criteria for this list is too vague. We would have to choose a cut off point for what percent of reviews are positive, which is hard enough (51%, 70%, 90%?), but how to make that calculation? how many review sites would you consider? what if a game got a great review for one feature, but horrible review for 9 other features? is that positive or negative? I have enough problem with lists of flops, neg reviewed films, etc, but this seems even more difficult to explain.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Thibbs (talk) 14:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would edge on Delete but it may be the case that the inclusion criteria is far too weak. There are games on there with the only claim to inclusion is one perfect review score. That just doesn't cut it. Clearly games like FF7 and Zelda: Ocarina of Time are natural candidates to include, but there needs to be some means to justify these from games that get good review scores but are forgotten about in months later (eg, Okami - highly positive reviews, but I wouldn't call it a notable game in this category). Negative reception is much easier to define - when a game is bad, it will be widely known, but positive reviews don't spread as far. I think one is going to have difficulty making a clear line here and thus likely not a good topic to start with even if it feels like the natural opposite of the acceptable "negative reviews". --MASEM (t) 14:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 04:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The criteria are far too vague. Many included games don't seem that good: Game Boy Color Super Mario Bros. Deluxe is apparently 150th overall in Game Rankings; Checkered Flag has "adequate graphics". But it's more serious than that. The lead says that the games have been called "best video games ever made", but there's no evidence of this for the vast majority, so clearly that's not a criterion being used. Normally I'd say, fix by editing - but how? Unlike with films where a number of organizations (e.g. Sight & Sound and AFI) carry out prestigious, highly respected and widely-reported surveys into the best films ever, there aren't equivalently prestigious lists for video games. Hence we can't really say what are the best with any kind of assurance. Maybe games getting a perfect score from IGN could be mentioned in the article on IGN. Other info could go in individual game articles, but most is already there. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think the person who created the article just put what they would consider the 'best' games, with their own person bias thrown in (notice the lack of any Final Fantasy games, or PC games, etc). The current list of what's there should not, in any way, be taken as what should be in there, were this article to stay. Though from what it's worth, I'm almost positive there used to be a similar article here, though I don't remember what it was called. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I wouldn't be strongly opposed to a move to a better name but I do have the same concerns as Cola above - that there just isn't a group of organisations doing the background work to substantiate rankings beyond whoever's personal opinion. So unless a good source of data can be identified; delete for now. Stalwart111 12:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "List of video games considered the best" per the above. The concept is notable and verifiably so. Although "notable for positive reception" is probably overbroad, "considered the best" is considerably narrower. It's also more closely reflective of the current inclusion criteria as spelled out in the 1-sentence lede. If modeled after "List of films considered the best", the article should be workable. -Thibbs (talk) 15:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: As others have already stated, the basic concept of such a list is notable, but maintaining objectivity and consistency is going to be a serious challenge. One solution may be to rely upon "best of" lists put together by respected publications such as the Hall of Fame (published in Computer Gaming World) and the All-TIME 100 Video Games (published by TIME (magazine). At the very least an article based on such lists would solve the problem of editorial subjectivity in determining cut-off points based upon review scores. Moreover, inclusion on such a list is demonstrative of a more lasting (and notable) positive reception than merely a few good review scores. However, it admittedly isn't a perfect solution. For example, some gaming "best of" lists are biased against well received games released only on an obscure gaming platform or games which were released 20 or 30 years ago. There is also the problem of determining which "best of" lists to use as inclusion criteria and what to do about those games that appear only on one list, but not on others. Ultimately some degree of editorial subjectivity is inevitable, but what degree is acceptable in this circumstance? While the concept satisfies WP:NOTE, I still have some concerns that developing a list of this nature satisfying WP:NPOV may not be a WP:SURMOUNTABLE challenge. --Mike Agricola (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I can see the concept of the list being notable, but this is a mess, with no real criteria for inclusion. Dragon Warrior III makes absolutely no sense being there, for example. I'd base an all-new list off games that appeared in multiple Top 10 Games of the Year lists across the more notable game review sites and magazines, but most of this article isn't worth saving. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:46, 18 February 2013 (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.