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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article's premise is inherently POV, and since "someone thought it was great" is the only criteria for inclusion, this is a pretty indiscriminate collection of information. wikipediatrix 20:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Nifboy 20:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As long as there a strict ruleset and every entry is cited by a major publication or website, I don't see a problem with this staying. See also Films that have been considered the greatest ever and List of video games considered the worst ever, both of which have survived AfDs (especially the second one) but also have very clear rules set on the talk page about what can be added, even going so far as to "nominate" entries before they get approved for the article. --SevereTireDamage 20:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Inclusion on the page means a game must meet specific criteria, and everything must be verifiable. In addition, as noted by STD above, many of these lists have been up for AfD and all have been kept (and I've voted keep on all of them). I don't consider the info in this article POV, especially if everything is sourced, and especially if its sister article for the worst games ever exists (which it does). -- Kicking222 21:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, list is strongly referenced and has definite inclusion criteria (which is what all of our lists should look like). It is not POV to say what other people have said. -- nae'blis 22:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The POV comes in the editors' decision to arrange them in a list in the first place. Surely you wouldn't allow a List of reasons the Jews have been considered evil, filled with anti-semitic hate-speech quotes, with sources? Just because a list is sourced doesn't mean there's no POV being pushed. wikipediatrix 13:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that you are correct in assuming that hate speach would not be allowed in article however, there is nothing in this article that even apporaches hate speach. I don't see any connection and I find it to be a bad comparison. --Edgelord 17:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no one said or even implied there was hate speech in this article - you're completely missing the point of the comparison, which is that just because some people say certain things, and just because we can cite them as sources and arrange them in a list, doesn't mean it isn't POV to do so. wikipediatrix 13:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Straw man arguments don't convince me; a verifiable, well-sourced list of anti-Semitic quotes doesn't exist on Wikipedia currently. If/when it does, let me know. In the meantime, you seem to be missing the part where it's not our POV that's being represented. We're simply reporting what others have said. -- nae'blis 18:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles that take sourced quotes and arrange them in a list to meet to a predetermined conclusion (in this case, "great") is still POV. Since the anti-semitic example seems too confusing, instead ask yourself if you would also support List of movie stars that have been considered really sexy or List of instances in which Woody Allen has been considered to be the worst director ever. wikipediatrix 13:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The latter is way to specific to be a useful list and former way too broad. If it were something like List of people conisered to be the sexiest alive and properly sourced, I'd be fine wtith it. Ace of Sevens 15:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be like List of sex symbols, right? Already deleted. -- ReyBrujo 15:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read the AFD in question and there are many comments that state that the article was not cited and that many of the selections were the personal choices of the editors. A quick reading of the AFD will demonstrate that being the case. This is not the case for this article and is a key difference between the two articles. This argument also goes against the peremise of your original argument because the deleted artice was not well sourced as the proposed anti-semetic article was said to be. This does not support you position because a badly sourced artilce deleted as POV cannot possibly prove that a well sourced aticle can be deleted for that reason. --Edgelord 19:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article has sourced all of the statements made. I also don't see anything different between this article and similar articles article that have survived deletion that warrents deletion for this article. --Edgelord 22:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There's no POV here. Crappy title, yes, but it's all referenced facts. --PresN 22:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Everything looks to be sourced. Needs a more elegant title? Maybe. Needs deletion? No. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete All the article is a list with some descriptions as is it's not really a article. I'm particularly disturbed by this sentence: While there is no universal standard by which to judge the quality of games... Whispering^(talk/c) 22:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I doubt that there is a universal way to judge anything. I also doubt that there was one for best movies and worst video games and they both survived deletion. Also while a judgement may not be universal I believe that the article does a good job by using well known sources and large polls and not from noname websites etc. --Edgelord 22:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Its sourced, and it works. All one has to do is restrict sources to reputable, high-circulation sources, to avoid the list becoming too cluttered with games that were considered the best ever by a blogger with 2 readers. Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 22:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep how many times do we need to have this exact same discussion? Twenty times for each article? Intelligent way of approaching a notable concept. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete - This entire article is POV. dposse 23:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is this POV. Everything is sourced and the information comes from well known sites, magazines and polls. If it came from small time sites and blogs I would agree but that is not the case here. Also this article does not appear to be diffrent that similar articles where this argument was defeated each time. --Edgelord 00:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article is relatively well sourced. It won't get a Good or Featured status for sure, and some references could be polished (The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past was noted as the best game by Entertainment Weekly.... Edition? Year? Critic's name? Anything?), but the article has been up for over a year and, so far, prevented spam non notable polls from being inserted. -- ReyBrujo 02:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found and added this for the Entertainment Weekly reference [1]. I think this will be helpful. --Edgelord 03:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Some sections could be better referenced, but I don't really see anything different between this article and the ones mentioned by SevereTireDamage that were kept. As long as there's strict inclusion criteria as far as what sources should be used, it's fine. BryanG^(talk) 05:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not PoV. Whether a game is good or not is subjective, but whether reviewers in general liked it is quite verifiable. Ace of Sevens 06:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable, yes, but is it notable? I can verify that my Uncle Ned likes Pac-Man, but does anyone really care? wikipediatrix 13:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, no one would care about your uncle, however, none of the sources in the article comes from family memebers. Also, most if not all of the citations come from well known websites and magazines. --Edgelord 17:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete I hate wikipedia articles which have the title "x considered the y ever". They are lists of opinions, often one person or a small group. Although they tend to be sourced, second-hand POV is still POV. I submit that any article which consists entirely of entries whose inclusion is based on one person's opinion, or a poll, is inherently unencyclopaedic. Lurker ^talk 12:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The fact that people like things doesn't make lists of them notable for an article, whether it's sourced or not. If allowed to stand, this opens the door for a whole new realm of passive-aggressive "consumer reports" style articles, like Brands of chewing gum that have been considered the greatest ever, etc. wikipediatrix 13:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do magazine and online publications frequently publish list of the top 50 best brands of chewing gum ever? THat's the difference. Ace of Sevens 15:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, due to sourcing and rigorous inclusion criteria. I don't know that the current article name is the best possible one, but I can't think of a better choice right now. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - My reasons don't include anything that hasn't been already said. I would say the same things as SevereTireDamage and kicking222. I would also add that this article IS in need of some clarification and organization. With (a lot of) work, this article could look much better, and could be quite encyclopedic. We should make a movement to strengthen this partial work to something great, not delete it because it's unfinished. Scytheml 15:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Original research. --Peephole 15:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)--[reply]

'Comment How is this OR? Everything has sources and therefore cannot be original research. This is not a legitimate argument in this case. --Edgelord 17:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree if I say, for example, Gigli is the greatest movie ever made, that doesn't mean anything. However, if Roger Ebert says it is, that is notable. Same thing here; it's not the editors who are saying they're the greatest games, it's the professional reviewers who are. Stev0 17:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Every game here has been sourced and cited-- this isn't someone just randomly making a list of games the writer considers important. ekedolphin 04:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment No, its a someone choosing from lists of games the writers consider important. Having a source does not make an article encyclopaedic. Any subject can have an article to cite, but there's a difference between front page of The Times (for example) and a list of games some people have voted the greatest ever. The problem with this sort of thing is that there are so many of those kind of lists, one is not really an authority. Also, because of the sheer amount of lists of this nature, inclusion in this article does tend to be a matter of opinion. Lurker ^talk 09:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Precedent is against you on this. If you think the editors have overlooked game with significant representative on top X games lists, bring it up on the talk page. Ace of Sevens 21:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per discussions above. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for all the reasons given. So long as additions are cited, I can't see a problem with this. Korinkami 22:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG rename title has a strong POV slant to it. --Kunzite 23:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What would you call it? The current title doesn't claim the listed games are the best ever, just that soemone has said so. Ace of Sevens 23:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Greatest ever" is very POV. "Most highly rated computer and video games" would be good. Or "Critically acclaimed computer and video games" would be just as good as it defines who's doing the claiming. --Kunzite 18:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Critically acclaimed does a much better job of setting the standard out there from the start. I like it. -- nae'blis 03:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lots of games are critically acclaimed. Only a few have major publications call the the greatest game of all time. The list would be ten times the length and much less maintainable if it were critically acclaimed games. Ace of Sevens 03:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • But lot of magazines apparently publish "best games ever" lists. As long as the criteria are narrow (as suggested will happen in this AfD) it should be fine. It's very superlative and the title is ultimately untrue. Lists are bound to change and be updated when the best game since sliced cheese comes out. --Kunzite 15:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, that's why this is a list of best games instead of good games. Unless the criteria were far tighter than the title implied, List of critically acclaimed games would have many hundreds of titles. Ace of Sevens 22:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're playing semanics. Of course the criteria would be mentioned in the lead of the article. "Most highly rated computer and video games" does the same thing without getting your whole red-herring about loosening standards. And apparently the critria are pretty loose for the current article. There are many unsourced and poorly sourced entries. Someone needs to do some pruning. Also, wouldn't it be better to put titles together instead of the willy-nilly fashion that they're arranged in? Also Some of they claim to be "#1" or the "best" in issue #whatever of some redlinked magazine with no indication that the top ranking goes into perpetuity. How do we know that Redlink Gamers is not some Fanzine produced by Martha Snodgrass of Moosejaw, Canada? The notability standards really need to be enforced. --Kunzite 22:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG Keep title is not POV, since "that have been considered" is not point of view. The arguement for deletion is specious at best, since there are few to no examples of games of "disputed" greatness.24.245.2.230 02:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep everything has a source and saying the game was chosen as the best ever could NOT possibly be considered POV.BackInBlack 12:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Individual articles can link what the basic public thoughts about the game were, but I don't really think we need an article like this. Gaming does not have as much as an influence on the media as other mediums (such as film), so it's not as widespread and we're going to end up getting far too many games to consider.--Mythi 05:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two problems with this argument. First, the article requires verifiable sources so that means that only certain sites can be included. By not using small blogs etc this helps keep the number of games on the list down. I also strongly against the nom manistream agrument for several reasons. First, games have become much more popular over the years and as mentioned earlier a similar article about worst games has passed 3 AFD attempts. This shows to me that people consider video game lists important enough and mainstream enough to be on wikipedia. --Edgelord 19:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per earlier reasons. Note that this article isn't POV. POV in Wikipedia *doesn't* mean that an article favors certain views over others. Wikipedia official policy in fact is preference for the majority view over the minority view so long as the minority view receives decent coverage, if the minority is vocal. In other words, what I'm trying to say is, for those of you who complain blah blah blah, go make another page labeled "Computer and video games that have been considered underdogs" or something. I'd contribute to that. -- Solberg 08:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Solberg[reply]

This argument is totally non-sequitur. --Kunzite 15:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not. The first few sentences are facts. Look up the policy if you don't remember. The last bit follows because there should be a "vocal minority" view as stated earlier. Duh. -- Solberg 02:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Solberg[reply]

• Weak keep. I don't think the article promotes any particular POV, and every inclusion appears to have been from some article or poll or another. I think that it would benefit from some links to online poll results or citing specific magazine issues/articles, though. -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 16:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. This article is in parallel with List_of_films_that_have_been_considered_the_greatest_ever, and uses the same criteria: best-selling (cf highest-grossing) and top lists by prominent magazines and other media (cf critically-acclaimed). If there are POV elements, then they absolutely should be cleaned up, but deleting the page is out of the question, unless the films article be deleted as well. --Cevlakohn 8 August 2006

Also another simliar article that I recently found, Films considered the worst ever have survived 5 attempts at deletion. [2] I think it safe to say if three similar lists have survived this many attempts this one should too. --Edgelord 20:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Doesn't seem to have POV problems, information is sourced, and similar lists have survived previous AfD nominations, so precident is in this article's favor. - Bootstoots 04:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.