Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cancelled Sega Genesis games


 * 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. WP:LISTN does not provide clear guidance here, and so I have to give larger weight than usual to the number of !votes that find this a useful list. If the sourcing problems highlighted by Czar are not fixed, a future AfD may be necessary. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

List of cancelled Sega Genesis games

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Please see the deletion rationale at Articles for deletion/List of cancelled games for Sony consoles. Group noms haven't gone well for me in the past, so I am nominating other lists like this individually but the same rationale applies to each. See WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games for other noms. I don't see a redirect as useful, but they are cheap and I have no objection to one.  // Timothy ::  talk  20:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy ::  talk  20:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy ::  talk  20:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect - As i've stated on the both the Jaguar and 3DO nominations, a redirect is better than getting this list wiped out completely... Roberth Martinez (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that redirection would be better than deletion (marginally) but I’m not sure I understand why you can’t rationalize a "keep”. That’s not really explained here or elsewhere as far as I can see... Sergecross73   msg me  03:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - Wasnt the sentiment in the prior discussions more that the intersection of “company” and “cancelled games” were not appropriate? Was there the same conclusion on “platform” and “cancelled games”? My readings were a little less clear that these articles were not appropriate... Sergecross73   msg me  22:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply: Hi, In the prior discussions, there was one AfD that used the company (most recent), four that used the console (older noms), and one that was a simple List of canceled games (older). I think their is a basic consensus from prior AfDs that lists of canceled games in general are usually not notable, which is why I thought conflating them was acceptable, but you have a point and I will update the main nom with this information.   // Timothy ::  talk  22:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - article is well-sourced with commentary and explanation. Articles scope and make up is different from ones cited in nomination. Sergecross73   msg me  22:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - Nom rationale does not apply. The problem is when scope is "List of cancelled games on ", not "List of cancelled games on ". Same goes for the other noms. TarkusAB talk / contrib 02:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as it is focused and well-sourced. List of Sega Genesis games is already extremely long, making a merge unlikely to be beneficial. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 11:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The list is on topic and has sufficient sources for notability. The referenced games also tell some history on the console as well as the companies that attempted to develop/publish the cancelled games. Deltasim (talk) 15:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Request for sources: the subject of the article is "List of cancelled Sega Genesis games", not an individual game. SIGCOV requires the subject be addressed directly and indepth. None of the sources in the article address the subject directly and indepth. Would you list some sources you found with SIGCOV for the subject discussing it as a group, not mentions about individual list items?   // Timothy ::  talk  16:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Searches like this can be more difficult than usual, because it was primarily active in the 1990s, when sourcing is largely locked away into paper magazines. I think it’s preposterous to think that cancelled games on a platform is something that never happened though. I think it’s far more likely that you misunderstood the reasoning as to why certain different lists were closed as delete, and mis-applied it to these nominations... Sergecross73   msg me  17:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Think of it a different way. This list is a cross-categorization of "cancelled games" and "Genesis games". WP:LISTN states there is no consensus on how to determine list notability for cross-categorizations. Sources do exist that discuss "cancelled games" as a set, but listing all cancelled games ever in one article would be unreasonable, so breaking out into articles by console is an acceptable solution. In short, this article is a valid WP:SPINOUT. TarkusAB talk / contrib 17:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. Well-sourced list with a logical scope; as mentioned, having all cancelled games together would be unreasonably large, so platforms are a good way to break them down. Phediuk (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. "Well-sourced" repeated three times above: Are you impressed by the 300 sources? Because every ref I check here does not verify the basis for the article, that the game was canceled. This list is a collection of times a source has mentioned a game for a platform, not giving any indication of cancellation. Stuff like "Only a single screenshot exists.[88] Showcased at E3 1995.[38]" is patent original research. Whoever wrote this could only find one screenshot. We know nothing about what definitively "exists" because as a tertiary source encyclopedia we depend on secondary sources to vet claims for us. Without reliable sourcing that covers canceled games on the basis that canceled games are worth discussing as a group, the article will sit and collect more of these unfounded claims. And that's before even getting to all of the unreliable sources cited here just to build up the rows: Unseen64, Hidden Palace, Segabits, individual resumes, come on... And that's before checking the dead links. From every row I check, I'm struggling to see this as anything but an egregious violation of "no original research", a core Wikipedia policy. czar  06:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Reply: The unreliable sources and original research can be removed as well as the non-notable titles to improve the quality of the content. We could also do without the reasons, which are better placed in either the individual articles of the corresponding titles or in the developer/publisher's history. If there are no objections, it maybe a good time to start editing the rows. Deltasim (talk) 12:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is endemic. It's every row. E.g., "Screenshots exists.[28]", "Conversion of the Amiga original.[48] Screenshots exists.[48] Slated for a July 1992 release.[48]", "Also known as Dan Marino's Touch Down Football.[75] Under development by Park Place Productions.[76]" I count 7% with confirmation of cancelation, and that's before discussing source quality. Without confirmations, this list becomes a coat rack for every name an editor has seen mentioned in any source at any time, each requiring further research as to whether it was even meaningfully in development. This is a potentially useful worklist for researchers in projectspace, absolutely, but for mainspace it's an indiscriminate collection of original research if there isn't citable coverage of game cancellations. czar  20:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Talk about cherry-picking. There’s reliable print magazines from the 1990s cited up and down the list. If you have any good-faith concerns on whether or not any Sega Genesis games from the 1990s are actually still in development and not cancelled, feel free to tag or remove the entries, but AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. Sergecross73   msg me  16:26, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Serge, those magazine sources cite announcements and development progress, not cancellation notices. It's the same reason we don't cite these sources for anticipated release datesthe source does not know about the game's outcome until it's written. If sources aren't writing about these games being canceled, we're just aggregating original editor research for titles that we found mentioned in a source once and haven't found mentioned again. czar  20:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If the concern is with the semantics of "cancelled", then retitle the article List of unreleased Sega Genesis games. TarkusAB talk / contrib 19:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to that either, other than it would really only work for inactive platforms. Otherwise, it would include every future release for platforms like Switch/PS5/SeriesX. But on active platforms, we’d have sources that would say cancelled so it would be okay to leave them at the current naming. Sergecross73   msg me  19:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * How about this? I can place the reliable sources into the games that have their own articles and exclude the unreliable ones (Unseen64, LinkedIn, etc.) It won't take too long to do so for me, either... Roberth Martinez (talk) 19:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If you're asking to move the refs into their dedicated articles, of course, you can always do that. As for "unreleased" vs. "cancelled", it's the same issue. We don't have sources that a game is unreleased. We have "unreleased" categories for articles on notable games without applicable release dates, but that's for grouping purposesit has neither the sourcing nor context for a standalone list. czar  20:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's pretty much the idea i have. I'm getting onto it right now... Roberth Martinez (talk) 20:55, 1 January 2021 (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.