Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deaths by computer or video game


 * 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 of the debate was delete; the article reeked of Jack Thompson POV. –  Sceptr e  ( Talk  ) 09:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

List of deaths attributed to computer or video games
Unverified claims, biased analysis is clearly prevelant, and lack of clear admeddeums are not reached on the talkpage. Per policy, such articles may be deleted promptly. ZeroTalk 23:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Nominators comments at User_talk%3AMegaman_Zero.

(silliness moved to talk)
 * silliness? There is NO reason for deletion listed! For great justice. 07:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. I have changed the title to List of deaths attributed to computer or video games The attributions are verified. There is no policy against such lists. For great justice. 06:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Thunderbrand 23:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I seem to remember reading some news articles that claimed that whole Starcraft death thing was nothing more than a hoax. --Hetar 23:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you find that? There are plenty of news articles reporting it as fact. For great justice. 06:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Most of those aren't deaths caused by games, and the rest are iffy. Games don't kill people, people kill people. ;)  Pagra shtak  23:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You clearly havn't actually read the article. For great justice. 19:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I have read the article, and my concern with it is that quite a few of the cited cases involve some speculation as to the motivations of the people involved. While it may be enough for the media that grieving parents claim Everquest drove their son to commit suicide, or that obsession with World of Warcraft led a couple to fatally neglect their child, the truth is probably more complicated than that. Kiti 21:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That's why the link between the two is not made in the article, only documentation of others who did. For great justice. 21:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and above. BryanG 23:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC) per Rossami below, who explains my reasons far more eloquently than I can. BryanG 02:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete There is a difference between dying while playing a game and actually being killed by one. Jedi6  -(need help?)  07:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 16:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The claims are not unverified, they either appeared in the mainstream media, are based on the comments of the corroners report, or other reliable source. What is an admeddeum? And what policy are you talking about? There are many such sourced lists. For great justice. 06:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * For great justice. is correct. There are sufficent sources and I have looked over them. Pretty good. However, I've left the deletion in effect which I have explained on my talkpage. -ZeroTalk 11:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Impossible to maintain @NPOV, Delete - the.crazy.russian   τ   ç   ë  14:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It's perfectly maintainable - there are not a huge number of credible accusations, and it has not POV problems - the accusation are verifiable. For great justice. 17:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. per my talk page. --Naha|(talk) 18:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Which part of the nom? All of the points made in it are wrong, as the nominator has admitted. For great justice. 18:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I did not. I merely said that I believed your sources to be lovely. I standfastly reamin by the rest of points I've raised here and on my talkpage. -ZeroTalk 19:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Then please explain, what is a 'lack of clear admeddeums', which analysis is biased, and which policy allows for deletion of such items? For great justice. 19:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The deaths were, in fact, attributed to a video game.  Whether or not they were casued by a video game is something else entirely.  Suggestions for other articles: Deaths attributed to high school sports, Deaths attributed to playing bridge, Deaths attributed to Boy Scouting, and Deaths attributed to hula hoops.  Suggested category: They died happy. Rick Norwood 20:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes they were attributed to a video game. However, in the minds of many, attribution implies causation - a claim that Wikipedia should not make. --Naha|(talk) 23:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Only in the minds of peope who don't know what the word means. That's what Wiktionary is for. For great justice. 15:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete and merge. I should first say that I have read the page, lest failure to have read the article should be ascribed to me by For great justice (as here).  In its present form, the article needs a bit of cleanup but surely is sourced and neutral.  Assuming arguendo that the list is maintainable, it is nevertheless unencyclopedic; a list may comprise only facts and be wholly cited and sourced nevertheless be inappropriate for inclusion (see WP:NOT).  Even as this list does not merit its own article, it surely presents information that one might merge into extant Video game controversy article, which presently addresses only concerns relative to game content but surely could be expanded to note that deaths have been attributed to individuals' video game-playing.  The occurrence of deaths attributable to video game-playing is notable; the names of those to have died is not, except where such names are provided only as ancillary to a broader theme.  Our article on Crocodile attacks is instructive here and may be compared to the video game article to illustrate best what is wrong with the instant article; notably, the article contains a list of deaths by crocodile as a section, just as the "video game controversy" article could contain the list of deaths as a section.  Joe 20:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment So you are arguing that it should be expanded and renamed so that the list forms part of a broader article? For great justice. 20:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Part of a broader article that already exists. In terms of expansion, I think surely there should be more information added as to scientific consensus apropos of the prospective harm of video games, but I think a recapitulation rather than recitation of this list is in order in the expanded section (the detail is exorbitant).  Joe 20:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * OK - I'm not sure that I agree that a broader article already exists, I presume you mean the controversy page, but I don't really think these deaths are controversial. It's just a list of deaths. Also, do you mean, merge, or delete? You can't have both for copyright reasons to do with the GFDL. For great justice. 21:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the controversy page probably should perhaps be renamed as a criticsm page; whatever the title, I do think this likely fits, inasmuch as the page really seems to be "why people don't think video games are good", where surely that they are thought to have caused deaths is appropriate. I do think one can suggest "merge" and "delete" here; we generally use that locution to mean that whatever information can be merged is inserted into another article, with the antecedent article then turned into a redirect to the new page, preserving the contribution history (although this is not done, per WP:MM, exclusively for such preservation). Joe 21:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Then that's merge and redirect, not delete, which destroys the history. For great justice. 21:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, but see here, where "merge and delete" is eventually understood to mean "merge and redirect"; that is, as I said, the sense in which I use it, and, in view of its having been the dominant formulation prior to early 2005 (if I understand correctly), the sense in which others use it. The reason that I think merge is appropriate is that the "controversy" article, even as it details normative objections to video games (e.g., that they impart "bad values"--whatever that means), also details medical (psychological and physiological) harms ostensibly following from video game use.  Joe 23:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information). The "verifications" which are taking place are news articles and distraught parents.  The fact that a news editor slaps a headline on an article that something was a "Video Game Death" in an attempt to sensationalize a story and sell some more papers does not, to me, seem to be a credible attribution.  If there were a peer-reviewed study about the connection between particular video games and heart attacks, that study would be appropriate for the encyclopedia.  This, however, is a mere list of events that are at best only loosely connected and in my opinion are more likely to be found to be completely unconnected.  Rossami (talk) 21:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment This, I think, fairly well encapsulates my thinking; the list should not be a dominant feature of an article or even of a subsection of the "video game controversy" article. However, given that there have been instances of video game-playing induced illness or death, the topic is perhaps one that the "video game controversy" article needs to address, but primarily with respect to general cases and supposed causes (as in the crocodile article), rather than with respect to enumerated individual cases).  It doesn't make sense to have a list like this without context or broader information, and so the article must either be deleted or, as is my preference, merged and expanded, such that it's not predominantly a list.  Joe 23:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as a list apparently set up just for the sake of having such a list, i.e. listcruft. Stifle (talk) 00:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - In a rare moment of actually agreeing with User:For great justice., I've actually found this article quite interesting and reasonably well sourced. I've heard about incidents like the Legend of Mir stabbing and the crazy Korean cybercafe death marathons, and it's kind of a nice place to have all those.  I do however have worries over the maintainability of this list as voiced in the article talk page.  Puritan on the Moon Jack Thompson attritbutes every crime and death at the foot of the evil computer game empire, listing all the deaths he's attributed to computer games would totally wreck the point of this list. - Hahnch  e  n 09:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete -- I regret that the nomination seems to have gotten off to a disorganized start, but that doesn't affect the content of the page. Were these people killed by video games? No, of course not. Did they die in a manner connected to video games? Quite possibly; but then perhaps several thousands have died while or shortly after playing a game. The connections cited are tenuous; cause-and-effect is not shown. It's quite possible, say, to read today's newspaper, stand up, and keel over dead from a stroke. Sensational media might decide to label this as a "news-induced death". All kinds of things might kill you, to stretch the point: mothers-in-law, fluorescent lighting, Barney. My feeling is that any source making such claims automatically becomes unreliable. The weasel word "attributed" does nothing for the quality of the article; anything might be attributed by somebody to something. At best, these "news reports" might be bundled with other Weekly World News articles and sold for bird cage liner. John Reid 15:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - We need this list to remind us how much parental neglect there is in the world. And how stupid people are, (i.e. no self control). Gene
 * Comment Wikipedia is not a soapbox and does not exist to inculcate morals. Joe 17:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - How is a discussion about violence in any form NOT a moral issue? Besides, those are the reasons for most of those deaths listed. Or are you agreeing with my statement but not my vote to keep? I'm just commenting on the ridiculousness of the whole issue. Maybe I should change my vote to Delete. They can say what they like about video games and violence but they're never going away. Gene


 * Note: two votes made by identical IP adresses. The closing admistrator should take the situation of sockpuppetry into account. -ZeroTalk 19:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: We're both from the same intranet. Gene


 * Jolly good. And the instance of you making edits almost simultaneously and sharing identical writing patterns is pure coincidence.


 * We're both from the same intranet.


 * Of course. -ZeroTalk 19:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I see the problem. I actually did say that over IM to him and he posted it. I think he was trying to quote me. Sorry!! Consider it one vote! (and I'm just getting used to using the Wiki...) --Gene 19:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per Joe, John Reid  jaco plane  22:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as per above. --InShaneee 04:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per John Reid Chris M. 04:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above --larsinio ( poke )( prod ) 13:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I echo User:Hahnchen above. Wikipedia has numerous articles which are just lists ( see Lists of people by cause of death). This one's a better than most. Lumos3 14:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That doesn't follow. All the people in each list are notable to some degree or another. Each participant in this list fails the requirements set by WP:BIO. -ZeroTalk 14:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Looking at the resepective talk page as well, I encountered this which validates such insertion of who goes in lists.


 * In short, none would permit these people in thier own articles due to policy restrictions. This list, like all its subjects is indescriminate and non-notable. -ZeroTalk 15:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Looking at this link one of the criteria is that the person is NOTED, and that NOTED suggests well deserved public attention. Any death attributed to a video game is likely to get well deserved public attention. All entries should be noteworthy by being cited in the media. Lumos3 09:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per John Reid. --Mmx1 17:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There seems to be a fair bit of bad feeling flying in multiple directions around this AfD, which is regrettable, and I hope people can come to terms with each other. I found the arguments presented here quite hard to follow. I did not, for example (after reading this page, the talk page, and Zero's talk page), fully understand precisely what Megaman Zero gave as deletion reasons, and some of the advocacies made by others I found hard to follow too. So I looked at the article and its sources and went back to first principles. I am not a fan of lists in general (if I had a tool to see how I've commented on various AfDs I think it would show mostly deletes for list related articles). However this seems more than just a list. I think the topic of why the media/people/relatives seem to hang stuff on video games is an important (and notable) one. But unless there is research out there already about why, writing an article on that topic would be original research, which we do not do. This list, though, shows that they do, and that's as close as we can get. With this article in existance, the encyclopedia is better than without it (that's the acid test, after all) because now interested readers can read and draw their own conclusions. Keep unless such an article on the phenomenon itself already exists (I could not find it in 20 seconds of trying), in which case merge to that article but in neither case is this a delete opinion. + +Lar: t/c 19:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment This also seems more-or-less to recapitulate my view (viz., that this should exist as an article rather than as a list), except that I imagine there must some legitimately-published and generally accepted scientific research on the subject, which should compose the majority of a prospective new article or section in an existing article. Joe 19:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Not a discriminate collection of information, most references have citations, new name is more apt. I see no reason not to keep (but if I'm missing something let me know). I don't believe the notability of the individual subjects has any bearing on this "compendium" article provided the information is verifiable. --kingboyk 20:04, 12 April 2006 (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.