Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of controversial 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 16:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

List of controversial games

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Most of the information in the article is unsourced. Contains 3 sources despite naming 100+ games. "Controversial" is a poorly-defined weasel word. Fails WP:V, which is non-negotiable. Chardish 18:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Reconsidering vote per below. JuJube 18:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete but do not salt; there could conceivably be a good, well-sourced article at this title, but this isn't it. *** Crotalus ***  21:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Incredibly strong keep, because this list is convenient, helpful, addresses an encyclopedic and relavent topic. If anything it should be expanded and more references added, which is likely to happen over time.  No legitimate reason to delete.  Best, --24.154.173.243 21:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - There is no objective definition of "controversial" (fails WP:POV) and this list is indiscriminate (fails WP:NOT). Otto4711 00:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Any article that contains a section called: "Video Games that Depict or Reference Urination" is... I'm laughing too much to finish my sentence. Croxley 05:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Definite KEEP - There is clear definition of "controversial" (succeeds WP:POV)in that the games have generated controversat nd more references will show that (yet, another jump the gun deletionist WTF) and this list is well argued nd NOT indiscriminate (does not fail WP:NOT) as reasons are given for each game.  Cheers! --Horace Horatius 14:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)  — Horace Horatius is a blocked user; see user page.
 * WP:POV is an essay, and is far from widespread acceptance, let alone policy. It's very very difficult to classify items in a list based on a POV term like "controversial". The term is ill-defined: Final Fantasy IX is a controversial game? Knights of the Old Republic? The Legend Of Zelda: Ocarina of Time?- Chardish 19:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I highlight two words from your comment: "more references." If every item on the list—or that remains on the list after a purge—has a reference to media coverage of a significant protest, then a case can be made that the game is notably controversial. That's a big if, though. —C.Fred (talk) 01:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, because reasons listed bove.  I brainstormed and couldn't come up with a legitimate or smart reason for deletion in this case.  I could only see someone wanting to delete it if they have a malicious agenda . . . --172.133.4.245 14:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)  — 172.133.4.425 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.  -- Pax:Vobiscum 14:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, because controversatwith games, especially video games is a hot topic. Fools tried to link it to the Virginia Tech fiasco even (Cho's suiet mate told Chris Matthews that Cho didn't play video games)!  But because of controversial subject matter with games like The Guy Game and its legal history of having a minor nude or Thrill Kill not being released for violence and so definitely makes a list of this nature valuable in a historical, cultural,  nd media sense. --63.3.1.1 20:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It may be a hot topic, but it's poorly defined and a POV term. See WP:LISTS - Avoid creating lists based on a value judgment or opinions of people or organizations. For example,  "List of obnoxious people" is clearly not acceptable, but more subtle examples could be   "List of demagogues", or "List of exploitative companies", or   "List of authoritarian leaders", as each one of these are based on value judgments even if these can pass the test of verifiability. "Controversial" certainly falls into the  bove category of "value judgments". - Chardish 21:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Then, why not just request that the games listed each have a reference that shows where someone considered them controversial nd/or rename the fantastic article List of games considered controversial to have some fun alliteration and indicate that what's controversial to one is not to others.  If nothing else, I cannot see how anyone wouldn't find urination or spanking controversial content for video games! --63.3.1.1 21:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, my opinion as to what "controversial content" is doesn't matter. Neither does yours, or anyone else's who edits Wikipedia. The point is that there is no objective description of what "controversial content" in video games is. Video games notable for negative reception is a good topic for an article because it makes two assertions: notability, which can be verified through the standards in place at WP:N, and negative reception, which is a well-defined and unambiguous term. Your suggestion that we say "what's controversial to one is not to others" is fallacious; neutrality is objective, and only what is objectively considered controversial should be included in the encyclopedia. Please read the Wikipedia policy on neutrality. And, on a lighter note, what is a controversy, anyway? - Chardish 23:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but few can reasonably deny that there ARE controversies with some games and whether or not we agree with the controvsery or how it's defined, the media, lawyers, groups, etc. see controversies and these imagined controversies have a historic nd media relevance as suggested  bove.  If encyclopedias are convenient reference tools, having a list like this is a useful guide for people to read about the items and then go to their main pages to see what the fuss was in each instance.  We shouldn't deny researchers such convenience when data space is hardly an issue for Wikipedia.  Give the article more time to improve as it is definitely relevant and worth keeping as myself and others obviously believe. --24.154.173.243 23:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Other than Horace Horatius, all keep votes are from anons. JuJube 23:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So what? We are all anons with vastly different edit histories, i.e. different people, and are making articulate arguments.  Not everyone has a need to make an account, especially those of us who use multiple computers. --63.3.1.1 00:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment While this is not the proper forum to debate why you should or should not create an account, it should be noted that anonymous votes are frequently ignored by closing admins. JuJube 00:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's ridiculous when those trying to delete the article are members of some kind of agenda group out to diminish Wikipedia by deleting other editors' hard work. --63.3.1.1 00:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments like that aren't going to help your case. JuJube 00:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Nor are your irrational arguments. --63.3.1.1 01:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Both you and 172.133.4.245 have theorized that those who vote to delete have some kind of "agenda." Please assume good faith and realize that we are trying to better the encyclopedia; deleting content that violates Wikipedia policy is just as important of a task as adding new content that adheres to Wikipedia policy. Also remember that there is no cabal. Addendum: one of the reasons that the arguments of anonymous IP addresses do not carry as much weight is because it is perceived that they are new to the project. As such, the perception is that they do not have the sound understanding of Wikipedia policy needed to participate in AfD discussions. Again, this is a matter of perception - but it is very much to your advantage to register an account and participate in the community if you want your arguments here to carry more weight. - Chardish 01:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You're a member of some group whose stated goal is to delete articles. So, what y'alljust lurk on the deletion debates to overwhelm people before they can make their cases?  An article such as this one has a clear reason to exist and yet if groups exist whose sole purpose is to delete articles allows for violations of POINT and OWN. Instead of actually considering individual articles' merits, how can we take people seriously who are on an admitted deletionist rampage? --63.3.1.1 01:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is clear. What constitutes "controversial" is a matter of opinion.  Your "reasoning" consists of WP:ILIKEIT. JuJube 01:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * At least I have reasoning. If you want to compromise, then rename the article List of games considered controversial as suggested above and improve it.  Totally axeing it is ludicrous and unfair. --63.3.1.1 01:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Changing the name to "List of games considered controversial" would do nothing but add a weasel word to the title. - Chardish 01:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Then just keep the article as titled and include a sentence noting that what is controversial to some is not to others. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter, yada yada, yada.  --172.150.213.178 01:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * But lists based on a POV judgment are not allowed. There's a reason there's no article called List of terrorists, with or without a disclaimer sentence. - Chardish 01:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Deletionism and inclusionism are not blanket philosophies that everything should be deleted or everything should be included. (Otherwise, what would be the point of participating in AfD?) At the risk of trivializing a complicated and long-running debate, inclusionists believe that poor articles should be kept and improved; deletionists believe that poor articles should be deleted. The inclusionist argument is that someone might improve the article someday. The deletionist counter-argument is that the inclusion of poor content hurts Wikipedia as a whole, and that deleted content can be easily re-added as soon as its quality has been improved and/or its appropriateness for Wikipedia included. Also, I would advise you to avoid attacking the motives of participants in this discussion; such behavior could be percieved as personal attacks. - Chardish 01:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from harassing fellow editors who appear to make valid points. --172.150.213.178 01:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see how anything I've done here could be construed as harassment. "Valid points" is subjective - harassment is not. On the contrary, I've tried to be very accepting and including of the new users - primarily my recommendations that you guys register accounts and thoroughly familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy. - Chardish 01:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You really shouldn't accuse those who disagree with you of personal attacks. That's a bit paranoid.  I'd also suggest you avoid using the word "very," as style guides on how to write denounce this word as overused and ineffective.  I just think you should work on improving articles, rather than destroying them.  And just seems, well, friendlier.  And plus, the deletionist thing seems kind of defeatest, like a give up, quitting attitude. Be more optimistic! :) --63.3.1.1 01:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I said that attacking motives could be perceived as personal attacks - I didn't accuse anyone of making personal attacks, as I'm really trying to be civil here (and my first rule of WP:CIVIL is that accusing someone of violating it is, in fact, uncivil.) And we deletionist types are friendly people, too. We just have high standards! : ) - Chardish 02:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I see the other anonymous has reworded some of the text. Give this article a shot to be revised as it seems entirely possible.  Even one of the few who voted for deletion above said similar "there could conceivably be a good, well-sourced article at this title" and so just add some kind of improvement tags instead. No real justification to delete. --172.150.213.178 02:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The additions to the article simply add weasel-word disqualifiers from verifiability, which cannot be in the encyclopedia per policy. - Chardish 05:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep the article and if I get chance, I'll add some more references. I like the new addition too as it really showcases and follows cleae encyclopedic policy. --24.154.173.243 14:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (Indent reset). Now that he brings it up, Mr. Anony has a valid point.  There exists an article called Films considered the greatest ever.  If that can survive, there is a valid reason to keep an article called "List of games considered controversial". JuJube 01:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reconsideration and by the way, I noticed on your user page that you have recent health issues. Anyway, although I may disagree with other editors here and there (I hate the deletionist cruft, but don't wish ill on the actual people), so I sincerely do hope that your health improves or works out.  Best, --63.3.1.1 01:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * KEEP, because I've yet to see non-suspicious reason not to. The reasons to delete seem to be using, if I may paraphrase our President, "fuzzy logic." --172.150.213.178 01:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC) — 172.150.213.178 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * SPEEDY KEEP, because this relevant article meets Wikipedia's guidelines and standards to a T. --164.107.223.217 19:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)<
 * Perhaps you might want to brush up on your understanding of Wikipedia's guidelines and standards - this discussion is not a candidate for speedy keep. - Chardish 20:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I checked and this is an obvious speedy keep. Take care.  --164.107.223.217 20:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's see, there are four possible criteria for speedy keep, one of which must be met. 1) No one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted. Crotalus, Otto4771, Croxley, and (sort of) JuJube all recommend deletion. Strike that one... 2) The nomination is unquestionably vandalism or disruption. Again, that can hardly be the case, as legitimate arguments have been raised supporting deletion... 3) The nominator is banned. I'm the nominator, and I'm not banned. 4) The page is a policy or guideline. Which it isn't. Would you explain how, then, this is an "obvious speedy keep," and what page you checked that gave you that impression? - Chardish 23:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * JuJube is reconsidering his/her vote and after reading what others wrote, you appear to be part of a group whose stated objective is to delete Wikipedia articles. Isn't that a disruptive policy?  But for what it's worth, I'm taking a break from Wikipedia and because I'm using a university IP, any edits on the next few hours or so are NOT from me the one who used the IP on this vote and I don't know if I'll happen to be on this particular IP again.  So, I'm just letting you know that if you don't hear anything further from me and notice radiclally unrelated edits from this IP, that's why.  So, good night! --164.107.223.217 00:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You didn't respond to my request to explain why this is speedy keep criteria. Also, register an account : ) - Chardish 00:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The nomination was in good faith and for valid reasons. I see no reason why this article should be speedily kept. —C.Fred (talk) 01:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep I disagree; nomination by possibly unconconstructive editor bent on deleting articles. --172.129.74.92 02:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)  — 172.129.74.92 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment Above anonymous user has voted "Speedy Keep" in a slew of AfD. His votes should be ignored as bad faith and disruption. JuJube 02:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Above registered user has voted "Delete" in a slew of AfD. His votes should be ignored as bad faith and disruption. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.162.65.72 (talk) 03:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Except that JuJube has 26,000+ edits on Wikipedia, 5116 in the project namespace. You have seven, all of which are speedy keep votes that ignore speedy keep criteria. The fact that you don't understand the difference between your opinions and his opinions is indicative of your apparent overall lack of understanding of Wikipedia policy and etiquette, as well as your general detachment from consensus (you have voted "speedy keep" in several AfDs where no one else even recommends keeping.) I recommend you 1) register an account and 2) make sure you thoroughly read and understand policy pages relevant to AfD discussions before participating in the discussion itself. - Chardish 04:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, we all have to start somewhere and why not start by voting to keep relevant and sourced articles that can easily be improved? Keeping articles isn't a big deal as they can always be renominated for deletion and if not be improved.  Deleting them however oftentimes unilaterally destroys others' work.  Do the people who contribute to articles always happen to be online and therefore aware that someone is even challenging their article if people belonging to some deletionist group team up to kill their work?  Going around voting delete in several articles in a short time is far more suspicious and far more disruptive.  --172.162.73.121 04:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If you keep disrupting Wikipedia processes to make a point, then stronger action will be taken against you. I've already removed all your trolling comments from other AfD's, so quit while you're ahead and stop trolling. JuJube 06:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep but pare down the list and provide reliable sources. I pondered this and thought what games, IMHO, should be listed as controversial: Conker's Bad Fur Day came immediately to mind, along with Leisure Suit Larry and parts of the Grand Theft Auto franchise. Upon scanning the list, Chubby Bunny seemed a logical candidate for inclusion. But strip poker is no more controversial than playing poker for money in the US right now! So I next thought, can the article be improved? Yes: reliable sources should be obtained for each game listed, showing media coverage of the controversy. Games where reliable sources can't be found should be struck from the list. Thus, within two months, the article should be a compact, fully-referenced list. If not, then run it through for a 2nd AfD as unsalvageable listcruft. —C.Fred (talk) 01:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. But please investigate WP:SOCK participation in this AfD and issue warnings or blocks as appropriate. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 06:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: This AfD has been hit by several anonymous sockpuppets of a user who has been indefblocked for editing in this style before (and also for sockpuppeteering). I've struck out the !votes of the anonymous puppets and will be watching this AfD carefully to make sure nothing else odd happens. Thankyou all for your forebearance as this issue was chased up. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 09:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Unsourced, originally researched, POV pushing trash. Examples include: Ocarina of Time being offensive to Muslims. Who said that? When? What about Final Fantasy VIII being controversial for having spanking? Since when has spanking EVER been controversial in a game? Clearing the crap out of this list leaves you with no article. The article just lists stuff the articles editors consider controversial with no references to whether it was or not. (Does ANYONE seriously believe that Final Fantasy IX sparked controversy for it's 'Tinkle Tinkle' urination scene for gods sake?) DarkSaber2k 10:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol delete vote.svg|20px]] Delete and redirect to Video game controversy Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 12:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * weak delete There are a number of games that could be in this list with their presence well-justified and sourced (the Grand Theft Auto series would be a prime example), so a much shorter list could be a good article. But this list as it stands has way too much stuff that is OR at best. &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 14:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Too much OR, not enough sourcing. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 14:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or completely rewrite from the ground up and source it all. Present content is OR and much of it extremely shaky OR at that: for example, I'm a huge Earthbound fan and have never heard anything about the game being controversial for one character mentioning spanking (WTF?) Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: Tag the appropriate items with a source request and move on. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That would require about 170 "citation needed" tags, from my count. - Chardish 22:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unbelievably subjective criteria, particularly about who calls something controversial and how this can possibly be neutral. Groups exist to automatically shoot down every first-person shooter, war game, adult-oriented game, children's playground game involving contact, children's game involving coed play, etc. --Wafulz 03:43, 2 May 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.