Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of controversial video 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   no consensus. It must be stated, however, that many of the complaints raised about this list are ones that are better handled via diligent editing, not deletion. Shereth 21:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

List of controversial video games

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Inherently PoV title, would probably be an indiscriminate list. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 03:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Too far-reaching a scope for a list. Previous versions had other games that were removed, for what reason is not clear. It seems that any game that created controversy should be included. This could be anything from nudity (BMX XXX) to patent infringement (The Simpsons Road Rage) to God-knows-what-else. It is debated that Warrior (arcade game) is actually the first fighting game. Should this also be included?  JohnnyMrNinja  04:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if a narrower scope was chosen, it could be kept. Maybe banned video games? ~  JohnnyMrNinja  06:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Unmanageable list with no exclusionary criteria and no obvious / workable criteria to frame this around. "Controversial video game" doesn't have a commonly accepted definition.  (Does it?) Townlake (talk) 05:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete- the inclusion criterion is nebulous and reeks of POV-pushing. It's impossible for this to be objective and encyclopedic. Reyk  YO!  05:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - I would include E.T. on this list, though I doubt others would. Violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: We have lots of potentially PoV lists (unusual deaths, famous gay/bi people etc.). I think this should be kept - it's interesting and it allows for navigability between similar items. The only thing I could say against it is that it is short and misses some very controversial, more modern, games. But that is a reason to expand, not delete. --Carbonrodney (talk) 07:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Rename to List of banned video games (compare with list of banned films), and source each entry.  Lugnuts  - Extra - I see that list already exists - merge in any useful content and the redirect. (talk) 07:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea... But what if they were controversial but not banned? Like that one with the boobs. Maybe that's how we can define the ambiguous meaning of controversial: not-banned. Nudity and copyright infringement (like JMN said) can all be included as we define only if there was some controversy involved with its release. Just because its going to be a long list doesn't mean it shouldn't exist... what do people think? --Carbonrodney (talk) 07:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm game to discuss it, but my good faith question remains: how would you propose to define "controversial video game"?  Not every game with nudity or wide-scale bloodletting has attracted the attention necessary to be deemed "controversial." Townlake (talk) 16:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 11:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per Reyk Sceptre (talk) 18:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment This article could definatly be expanded, by taking stuff from Template:Video_game_controversy, bringing the total up to 24 games in the list.  The scope of the list, however, is outside of banned videogames since they were merely controversial rather than being removed from the shelves.   --Sigma 7 (talk) 18:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What are the criteria for inclusion in the template? Townlake (talk) 19:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep deal with as sigma suggests, --controversial games at Wikipedia almost by definition are games over which there has been a notable controversy. It can mean a number of specific things, which can be distinguished by explqanations in the list. DGG (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC),
 * Comment - I could see lists like "banned video games", "video games with nudity", "video games labeled with parental warnings" and such because the criteria is very cut and dry. The list as stands, and even under these proposals, is too indiscriminate, and WP specifically bans that.  I was half kidding about E.T., but I could argue that this game was as controversial as any other, considering it nearly brought down Atari (and likely contributed to its home video system demise) ... yet that is really not what is being discussed here.  "Controversial" is too ill defined.  I am completely with Townlake in wanting to hear an answer to the question. LonelyBeacon (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I disagree that the list is unmanageable and indiscriminate - either the game in question caused a stink or it didn't. Controversial and banned are separate things, though there is some overlap. Those interested in society's attitudes towards videogames would find this an invaluable tool, as far as what criteria could be applied it's pretty simple: sex, violence, religious outcry, racism, affects on children. That translates to: Custer's Revenge, Manhunt, Resident Evil 5, the hot chocolate thing etc. - all of which can be sourced. ET wouldn't count because it wasn't controversial, it was very poorly rated and is alleged to have been the cause of the video game crash. If he dismembered the milk man and raped Mickey Mouse during his falling-down-holes adventure it'd be different. Someoneanother 00:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment- E.T. wasn't controversial? Tell that to the people who lost their jobs over it.  It was very controversial:  why would a company rush out a game that was so obviously not ready when so much financially was at stake?  Proving something was controversial with sourcing gets to be very subjective.  It is easy to say "use common sense", but what is obvious to one person is not so obvious to the next person.  Your statement supports it ... it defines "controversial" as having to involve things like dismemberment and Mickey Mouse.  Would Smash TV qualify?  What about Gauntlet?  What about a game whose controversy was more financial than content oriented?  Controversy is not objective, and that's why this list becomes indiscriminate. LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep — I have to agree with the main reasons behind a couple of people here. If a game garnered sufficient controversy to the point where it can be verifiably referenced, then it's fair game. A good analogy was made, I thought, with the List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people; my guess that well over half the people on that list would not be notable if they were not LGBT. The presence of that controversy, in addition with the presence of verifiable information, makes subjects like these worthy in inclusion. MuZemike (talk) 00:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The controversy over E.T. can certainly be verifiably referenced. Same for the controversy over the "best video game of all time" and subquestions of that debate.  Anyway, worth noting:  the article version of this list currently exists at Video_game_controversy, and I suggest everyone take a peek.  It looks like that one is a work in progress itself, and progress is indeed being made.  Would be interested to hear people's thoughts. Townlake (talk) 21:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, as Someone another pointed out, this wouldn't count (in their opinion). This demonstrates the point I am trying to make:  "controversey", by its very nature, is subjective.  Even with sources, it is subjective based on the choice of words of individual reporters, and their point of view. LonelyBeacon (talk) 09:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC) (this was my unsigned comment, I think it got accidentally attributed to another editor).
 * What I should have said is that the list as-is refers to public outcry about the content of video games, which is a much more specific. A disclaimer/introductory paragraph to that effect would force additions to the list to actually have references. Yes, that would leave some room for arguments, but that's the nature of the entire encyclopedia. In that context there are a lot of obvious candidates (the race-row over Resident Evil 5 for instance) from here stretching back and also into the future. As a chronological list that would be a useful research tool. One of the four games currently in the list (Death Race) is in a book in front of me - "...the arcade title Death Race holds a special place in the history of video games by being the first title to be widely criticsed for being too violent." Video game controversy is there to cover the subject collectively, not a stock-pot for every example to be thrown in. That's where the list comes in, and I believe it is manageable but needs to be defined as a 'moral outrage' or 'public outcry' list, not "I think that's quite controversial". Someoneanother 13:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and that's where the presence of verifiable sources (e.g. for Death Race) showing evidence of a moral panic or moral outcry come into play. It has to be the sources, not original research or speculation, that must show whether or not a controversy existed for a certain game or event. MuZemike (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Nip it in the bud. I prefer to keep lists in hopes of cleaning them up, but this only has a few games so far and will rapidly become unmaintainable.  We already have a V-D-E about video game controversies which has a section for game titles. Delete. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment — Can we move the article to something worded differently such as Controversy on Video games or something similar instead of deleting the whole thing altogether? MuZemike (talk) 08:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note — Article has been flagged for rescue. MuZemike (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Lists (discriminate-clear inclusion criteria, encyclopedic-video game controversy attracts encyclopedic/almanacic interst, maintanable-I'll keep it watchlisted and agree that only referenced games should be included in the list, notable-controversial is inherently notable, unoriginal-video game magazines cover controversial games, and verifiable-again video game magazines and even mainstream newspapers have covered particularly controversial games) and use this for possible expansion. I will begin that effort.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 02:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Pumpkin King, forgive me, but I cannot think that one person requesting to take responsibility is reason to keep any article. Further, I am concerned because you suggested adding to this list from this, which is itself lacking in citations to verify inclusion. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think I would realistically be the only one monitoring the page in question as I reckon the article creator and others would be willing to do so as well. The article provides a helpful complement to the video game controversy article and is also good as a navigational tool as well to these articles.  That other list, while unsourced provides a means of articles to search for, i.e. tossing some of the names together in a Google searching and seeing if they are discussed together in the context of being controversial games.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 05:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep This list is fine. Sourced, short and spare--if it is a real problem at this size it could be merged into the VG controversies article.  there are also lists out there as sources listing "countdowns of controversial video games" so the concept isn't really OR (most of those are blogs that think they are edgy by mentioning Custer's revenge, but hey). Protonk (talk) 05:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Some sources that aren't blogs (because LGRdC got most of the blogs):
 * 
 * I feel dirty linking this
 * this too. It's like the "Now that's what I call music...of printed sources
 * ahh, much better
 * less likely to be about the exact topic
 * good
 * Ok. That should be good for now. Protonk (talk) 05:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope there is more .... only #5 addressed a video game by name (GTA:SAn Adnreas). Did you read the others?  They were mostly abstracts to scholarly papers on the controversial video games.  #1 was a scrap of paper that had the word "controversey" highlighted.  This is exactly why I can't support keeping this article.  All these sources seem to establish is that some video games are controversial.  What I am talking about is providing reliable sources that demonstrate each game listed in controversial.  We already know that some video games can rankle people's feathers.  We've got an article for that.  What I am talking about is:  to support this list, I think there needs to be evidence supporting these particular games as controversial.  I hear a lot of people saying "oh, there's sources", but after looking myself, and waiting, I have seen only the one that you have produced (and GTA:San Andreas isn't even on the list).  I stand by that this list lacks WP:RS, and is inherently WP:INDISCRIMINATE. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * See these reliable sources for this discriminate list. Others include:, , , etc. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 05:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ...yes. I read the others.  I also skimmed the papers whose abstracts I linked to.  They are gated so I hope whoever would use them for inclusion in the article would just download the paper.  I'm also guessing for the first link--I don't actually have a copy of that book in hand but I figure the redacted section (a section on this history of video game controversies) might be helpful.  The reason it was a scrap of paper was because not all content is indexed and shown on google.  Facts on File will show up at most local libraries, so all it takes is a trip to the reference section to suss out that source.  #2 lists Death Race explicitly (scroll up).  #3 list three games, in about the level of detail you would expect an "encyclopedia" to do so.  #4 is a freaking treasure trove.  It talks about leisure suit larry, Custer's revenge, tomb Raider, DOA beach volleyball.  I won't go on to 5 and 6.  You get my point.  I've read the sources.  The sources support the claims I made above.  I don't see what the problem with them is. Protonk (talk) 06:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I will publicly respond to Protonk: I did not mean to truly insinuate that you hadn't read these articles, it is more of a figure of speech.  No incivility was intended.   If it was taken, then I apologize.  It appears that sources were added since I last checked.  I still find the principle of this list indiscriminate.  Now, I am going to take a Tea Break for a while. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Lists was poorly referenced above. A list must specify inclusion criteria. There is no clear inclusion criteria, list of banned video games already exists, there is no reason to keep this article because it serves no clear or useful function. ~  JohnnyMrNinja  06:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   —~  JohnnyMrNinja  06:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The inclusion criteria is fairly clear, i.e. games that have explicitly been described as "controversial". Besides, WP:USELESS is not a compelling reason for deletion.  But to counter it, it serves as a discriminate and verifiable supplement to our article on Video game controversy and also as a navigational tool.  Thus, there is no reason to delete the article.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 07:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Banned video games are different from controversial video games in that controversial video games are not necessarily banned. MuZemike (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I have to give the contributors credit for the improvements that have been made to the article since this AfD began. That said, I do think there still need to be qualifiers on what sources result in listings here and what is excluded - the Craddock and Silverman sources do a great job of explaining the reasons the games listed are controversial, but the "Fecal Jesus" opinion piece is far more oriented toward why the games suck than why they're "controversial."  (It even identifies the Michael Jackson game as "not at all controversial in its day.") Townlake (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: This is a POV magnet for sure. But if people can ground every single statement here with a reference to a reliable secondary source, then most of the problems will be addressed. The controversies should be in the opinion of RSS, rather than in the opinion of editors. If necessary, move/rename/split the page so that the measuring stick is more clear. Randomran (talk) 17:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I've updated the page a bit. some of it was just cleanup, some of it was addition of references.  The 5 links I showed above are not now included in the article.  Unreferenced entries have been removed, as has the "Moonwalker" entry.  I've also proposed a merger with video game controversy.  As I see it, that article needs all the help it can get, and an ordered table like this might be able to do that.  So I can take it or leave it.  I'd rather the article be kept, but I want to see what the thoughts on a merger are. Protonk (talk) 01:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice work, perhaps a short description for each entry as opposed to a simple 'sex' or 'violence' label would help readers as well as those adding games to the list. The other thing would be individually listing and citing games within controversial series. Rockstar's games would be the primary example, since the company uses controversy as part of its sales and promotion plan a timeline of the individual games would help on that level. Someoneanother 10:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking about that. I think splitting games up within series is a good idea.  Since I view this list as a probable merge candidate to Video game controversy, I'm trying to keep it spare (presumably once merged, the "reason" section can include a section link to the game controversy in question).  Thanks for the input! Protonk (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just my opin: that article is pretty scattershot already. I see the list being more valuable as a clean and separate entity, unless you're talking about using the table format to organize the main article (which I think could make a lot of sense). Townlake (talk) 16:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's pretty much why I proposed the merger. I want to remove the bulleted list of controversies and introduce a table of sourced controversies with internal links to the most notable and 3-10 word explanations of the least notable. Protonk (talk) 16:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, I see no inherent problem with such a list, although we should be sure that only games that have been definitively controversial are included. Everyking (talk) 04:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep notable subject, being on the list would require a source/reference for aforesaid controversy. 'nuff said. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I'm still wary of the inclusion criteria being too broad, but worth giving it a shot since so many editors have rallied to the cause. Townlake (talk) 14:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep; the scope is narrowly and explicitly defined, the list is thoroughly sourced, and the topic of controversy in video games is highly notable (being the subject of national legislation, vast scholarly attention and newspaper inches for example). Move to close per WP:SNOW Skomorokh 16:22, 24 July 2008 (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.