Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of video games cancelled for PlayStation consoles

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 no consensus. Secret ^account 14:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of video games cancelled for PlayStation consoles[edit]

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

Unnotable list of non-existent games or those supposedly intended for the various PS platforms but unreleased; almost entirely unsubstantiated, unverified rumors sourced almost entirely to a single site. Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a trivia site, and games being canceled on a platform is generally unnotable. Prod, which was endorsed by the original list creator[1], was removed by Bmhs823 (talk · contribs) with note of "Removed deletion template (only comprehensive source for this information) (consider merging with "List of cancelled video games")" who apparently removed similar prods from several similar articles.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same basic reasons - none of the lists are notable, and with little to no sourcing to reliable sources (some are sourced almost entirely to personal websites on Tripod). The games being canceled for release on one platform is neither significant nor notable. These were all coincidentally prodded by another editor at the same time I was prodding the PlayStation one. His original prod reason for each was "No notability asserted for any of these cancelled games, no substance, and completely unsourced. As it stands, it's merely a trivial list intended for gamers exclusively." All of the prods were removed by Bmhs823.

-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The category of cancelled video games should cover any notable cancelled game or video games that were cancelled on other platforms or revived at a later date. Listing video games that are neither of those just makes this an index of trivia. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 08:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sourcing to a single site would be less of a problem if we knew where the info came from and who added it. I'd rather see announcements of the actual companies announcing the release and cancellation of said games. I'm not sure whether a list of such games is viable yet. Without the added information about why they were cut, I don't think it lives up to our encyclopedic needs. After all a cancellation in a series is more notable than one of a single game and cancellation because of gamer backlash is more notable than one caused by financial problems. At the moment I'm leaning towards a category for such games if they can be described in more detail. But I'm open to being convinced. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - this is exactly what the categories are for. Any relevant prose on these games can be added to each game's article, should that game itself be notable. --Teancum (talk) 13:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Keep per Lugnuts's point. I didn't know that policy existed. --Teancum (talk) 17:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Categories and lists go hand-in-hand, per WP:CLN. The lists have defining criteria. Lugnuts (talk) 16:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They can go hand-in-hand, not they have too. Further, just because there is a category for these does not mean the list itself is automatically notable and must be kept or is valid. Please evaluate the list itself, not the categories or need for categorization. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is notable, it just needs cleanup. WP:AFD is not for cleanup. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 08:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Its a perfectly acceptable list. It shows just how many games were canceled, and you able to see if they were released on another system instead. I'm curious as to the reasons why they were canceled, that a category that should be added if possible. Low sales on another console, exclusive deal with another company to only release on their system, made more money with this other system so wanted to support it, got rejected from one system for whatever reason, etc. Dream Focus 17:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The games were not cancelled, they just were not released to these platforms. There are no sources even confirming any of these were every intended for those platforms. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. They have plenty of references to where the games were announced as being future X-box games, then not released. List of video games cancelled for Xbox consoles Dream Focus 17:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, they all have a single source, IGN, which is not the same as "plenty of references", most of which have only a single news item claiming the game might be released and based on rumor, with no actual source stating it was canceled. Further, the topic as a whole has no significant coverage in any source. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was an announcement of the game being released on a console, then IGN would list it. IGN would NOT list something not officially mentioned by the game developers. Dream Focus 17:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commandos 2 [2] "Once in development for Dreamcast, this version was eventually canned and never released." Sounds like a notable reference to me, from a site which is seen as a reliable source. Dream Focus 17:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I click on the first entry in the List of canceled video games and read that article, it stating, "The game was released on all major formats of the time except for the Amstrad CPC, which was announced but never released." The list organizing information found in other Wikipedia articles. AFD is not cleanup. If you have a problem with any entry in the list, honestly doubting its accuracy, then you tag it with a reference needed, and discuss on the talk page. Dream Focus 17:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. An unverifiable list of games that by definition don't exist? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Someidiot (talk) 18:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - How exactly is this unverifiable? 90% of these games are easily verifiable via a simple search on sites like IGN, Gamespot, GameSpy, etc. --Teancum (talk) 12:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - I have worked in the game industry for many years and assure you that the percentage of projects that are proposed by companies and/or discussed in the press but never actually produced is alarmingly high. To be encyclopedic we should use a similar criteria to WP:N (films): "films produced in the past, which were either not completed or not distributed, should not have their own articles unless their failure was notable per the guidelines." It follows that a list of non-notable topics is itself not notable. Someidiot (talk) 20:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - You may be Someidiot, but you've got a point there! *badumtish* But yes, I do agree - if a cancelled game is only notable by exception, then this list is a list of necessarily non-notable subjects. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - And in specific response to verifiability, I'm not sure that websites like IGN really meet WP:V's standard of "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." While independent, they're essentially mouthpieces for the industry, which lives and dies on hype. Game companies continually make "announcements" to the press about upcoming titles, often accompanied with screenshots that a competent artist could mock up in an hour. A lot of these projects get canceled or never even make it into production. Something like Duke Nukem Forever is certainly notable, but an announced-but-never produced PlayStation port of Aliens versus Predator, not so much (especially when the base article doesn't even mention the canceled port). Someidiot (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why would the main article mention a canceled port? Each item listed got news coverage, even if it was just people commenting on a press release from the company, and showing screenshots provided. And I do believe IGN has always been considered a "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Dream Focus 17:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't see why. Like he said, being a video game is enough to be included on IGN. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm a bit confused by your comments, Dream Focus. You say that all items on the list have coverage, but the majority have no cites at all. In reference to the example I mentioned (just the first one on the list), you also seem to agree that a canceled port is not notable enough to be mentioned in the Aliens versus Predator article, but you think that a list of canceled titles is notable. It's also a claim that isn't cited at all, though I don't find most of the existing cites at all compelling. I'm not gong to argue vociferously about websites like Ign or Gamespot as verifiable resources, but assuming there information is correct, why should wikipedia mirror it?
      - I haven't seen any response to the main reason for deletion, that it's an indiscriminate list of trivia, and therefore not encyclopedic. I'd also like to know why video games should be treated so differently than films - there is a clear wikipedia policy that unproduced films are not intrinsically notable. Some certainly are, and some unproduced video games are notable, but on the average, they're not. And I don't see how lists of items that are not notable themselves can possibly be notable. Are there similar list of unproduced films, tv series, plays, books, or other creative works? Not that I can find. I just can't see any compelling reasons why these lists, or categories like "canceled (whatever system) games" would need to exist. Someidiot (talk) 07:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Trivial listcruft and just clutter at best. Move to a video game wiki if necessary. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Providing that each and every element in the list can cite a reliable source stating that the game was cancelled, this is a viable list. Whilst there are footnotes galore here, I've examined a dozen or so on each page, and none of them have linked to any kind of "cancelled" news. Probably best gut this and start again with correct referencing. If there are enough entries in each list to justify an article, then this is a keepable topic. Marasmusine (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Masasmusine. If these games are verifiable and substantive for stand-alone lists, then they would be viable lists to have here. MuZemike 19:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL, and for being Listcruft. Peridon (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2009 (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.