Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Video game controversy


 * 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. Per WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  04:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Video game controversy

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

A "controversy" article which has been tagged with problem tags for at least the past eighteen months. The major problems with this article seem to be the normal problems: bias, and synthesis. The article, an ostensible spinout of Video game, synthesises several controversies about several games (MK, GRA, Manhunt) and applies it to the entire VG scope; most notably, in the "publicised incidents" section. There is little, if not no, effort put into offering the otherside of the debate; in essence, this is a one-sided POV fork of video game. While AfD is not cleanup, I see no way in which this article can ever be fully compliant with all three of our trifecta of policies (NPOV/NOR/RS), which indicates that the article should be deleted. Sceptre (talk) 04:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Too broad and scatterbrained to remain its own article. I'm neutral on whether anything's worth splitting and merging elsewhere. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? No.  Keep this article.  AfD may be fine to deal with mergers consequent to non-notable sub-articles but it is decidedly not the venue to discuss multi-target mergers and selective mergers on a subject of some note.  Is this article a mess?  Sure.  Could it be better expressed in some other form?  Probably.  Can we do that by deleting it or forcing some merger process to a target as broad as Video game?  No.  "Controversies in video games" has had enough coverage in secondary sources that you could write a tertiary source on only that subject.  If this article needs cleanup, clean it up.  Don't use deletion as a tool to do so when better methods exist. Protonk (talk) 04:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The point is that no matter how much work is done in fixing this article, it won't ever be compliant with our core policies. I've read all the essays about "potential" and "no deadlines", but I don't see any potential for this article to pass NPOV at all. Yes, it's sourced. But RS doesn't preclude NPOV. People really need to take a more aggressive stance to deleting POV material in the same way we're aggressive about deleting unsourced material, if we're going to have any chance of being reputable. Sceptre (talk) 14:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I really don't see the undue weight issue, though. This content is better than the controversy material in most of the potential target articles, and would well represent a widely-held, widely-discussed, albeit somewhat incoherent viewpoint. I suspect that the incoherence of this article has a lot to do with the incoherence of the topic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles shouldn't be purely devoted to one viewpoint on a subject. The current title is woefully incorrect; I see no evidence of "a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views" (Merriam-Webster), just a bunch of synthetic statements against video gaming in general. The content could do with being merged into Video game or deleted, but it certainly should not be an article on its own. Sceptre (talk) 14:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I don't disagree that the article sucks. I just don't think that there's undue weight given to these views, just insufficient weight given to other ones. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up bias if necessary. The presence of the article makes sense and deletion won't do any good.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep This nomination just shows that any article can be deleted, nominated by an editor whose only "contribution" to the article has been the AfD tag. It has 42 very good references for god sake. The statment: "tagged with problem tags for at least the past eighteen months." begs the question: Why didn't the nominator attempt to clean up this article himself? Three quotes come to mind: "I'd Rather fix the damn pipe rather than complain about having wet feet, better to light one candle than curse the darkness" and from the Guardian: "Self-promoted leaf-pile guards...appeared [on Wikipedia], saying that your leaves were too crumpled or too slimy or too common, throwing them to the side" Ikip (talk) 07:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It also goes to show that anyone can comment on AFD, even if they aren't going to address the article's issues or offer anything but ad hominem attacks. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are clearly controversial aspects of video games that require coverage.  The long list of references on the article clearly demonstrates the notability of its subject; we should therefore have an article on this topic.  A quick read of the article doesn't suggest any bias or synthesis to me, and even if there is any I suggest that these are problems best fixed by editing the article rather than deleting it.  I'd suggest the nominator call out explicitly what argument he believes is being synthesized here that is not supported by the sources used.  JulesH (talk) 09:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - the article, as it stands, is a bit ugly and yes, scatterbrained. However, the subject is notable, and has received not only quite a bit of media coverage, but has been an issue brought up frequently in the US congress. The issue, again, is quite notable and a topic of discussion for years. The different subjects covered in the article belong merged into an article of this subject (i.e., not a different article for violence, then another for sex content) . Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - The tags may be there but they are all related to cleanup, not notability, thus there's no reason to delete. Cleanup is absolutely necessary but there's no deadline for that.  Given the number of references and the potential for more based on the missing citations, this likely can remain its own article. --M ASEM  16:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. The article just needs to be cleaned up a bit, but it has been tagged since mid 2007. Versus22 talk 19:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep – very notable and well-referenced topic. MuZemike 21:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Video games are resulting in new controversies that should be noted and discussed. A good example is the Columbine shootings which were blamed on Doom. Considering this is a subject that enters the news regularly, we should have an article to inform those who are interested in the subject. This article could be cleaned up, however. Vasant56 (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Video game controversies are a big concern for gamers and their allies. They have been publicized in the media.  Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando (talk) 23:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep If an article suffers from a biased Point of View, try being bold and making the necessary changes rather than deleting the article. I can't see how this article could be incurably POV.ZappyGun  (talk to me)  What I've done for Wikipedia  02:39, 23 February 2009 (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.