Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Super Columbine Massacre RPG!

Super Columbine Massacre RPG!

 * This is the archived discussion of the TFAR nomination for the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page unless you are renominating the article at TFAR. For renominations, please add   to the top of the discussion and   at the bottom, then complete a new nomination underneath. To do this, see the instructions at TFAR nom/doc.

The result was: not scheduled by Brianboulton (talk) 10:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)



Super Columbine Massacre RPG! is a role-playing video game created by filmmaker Danny Ledonne. The game puts players in the role of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, two teenagers who killed themselves and others in the April 20, 1999 Columbine High School shootings. Players direct the shooters' actions in the school and, after their suicides, through fictional adventures in hell. Released on the sixth anniversary of the shootings, Ledonne intended the game to be a statement about the sensationalization of the shooting by the media, as well as a critique of video game conventions. Although the game initially attracted little attention, gaming press and the mainstream media picked up the story the following year. Reaction to the game's content was conflicting, with the title criticized as trivializing the actions of two murderers, and alternatively lauded as sophisticated and worthy of praise. Ledonne has since become a spokesman for games as a form of artistic expression, and produced a documentary detailing the creation of his game and the issues surrounding controversial games like it.
 * Most recent similar article(s): Dishonored (January 11, 2016)
 * Main editors:
 * Promoted: January 20, 2009
 * Reasons for nomination: Interesting topic.
 * Support as nominator. sst ✈  05:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The other coordinators and myself have agreed that this article should preferably not be run. Unless a good argument for running it can be made, I'll stand by the results of our previous discussion. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I can understand not running it on specific dates, but how is this any worse than other articles with potentially offensive titles? This is a well-written article on a serious topic. sst ✈  10:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm on board of course with the idea that some FAs are on topics that are too offensive for TFA. This article was mentioned last February. I deferred to Chris and Brian then, and I'm still deferring. - Dank (push to talk) 13:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As Dank says, we discussed this very subject last February as an example case of articles we may have to decline for subject matter. If the rest of the community (read: the commentators at TFAR) are supportive of running the article, I won't mind scheduling, but personally I find the approach taken with this subject questionable; as such, I will not schedule without a clear consensus. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per common sense. It's a fine article on a notable subject, but like Dank, I believe some FAs are not suited for the main page. Running this article would come across as exceptionally insensitive and certainly generate plenty of negative publicity. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - Interesting article which looks more in depth into what games can do than the standard video game FA. I'll go by what the critics who actually played it said rather than the talking heads of cable news. - hahnch e n 20:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The issue is not, and never has been, the quality of the article itself, but as Julian says, one of sensitivity. However the game is supposedly nuanced, the idea of basing a video game on a relatively recent mass murder is objectionable to many; the sensationalist format of the title ("Super Columbine Massacre RPG!") sounds triumphalist and is doubly distateful. Regrettably, there is also the risk of a similar "incident" occurring at or around the time of the proposed TFA. This should not run. Brianboulton (talk) 12:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)