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. - Mailer Diablo 06:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of commercial failures in computer and video gaming[edit]

List with impossibly vague criteria: "...a commercial failure for a video game hardware platform is generally defined as a system that either fails to become adopted by a significant portion of the gaming market place, or fails to win significant mindshare of the target audience." Characterization of the items on the list as "commercial failures" is largely OR synthesis. JChap T/E 00:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this could be a great article. It's encyclopedic, verifiable, and quite interesting for our readers. - Richardcavell 00:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Whether or not something is a "commercial failure" is subjective and, thus, inherently unverifiable. It may be interesting, but so is a conversation about "Negro league players who had the most successful major league careers," but there is not a WP list for that. JChap T/E 01:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, we have similar lists that have survived AFDs before (preparing dinner to search for them). I suggest removing every unreferenced game, and start anew. -- ReyBrujo 00:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  The few games that are on there have some references, but it is the assertion that the games are "commercial failures" that is OR synthesis. JChap T/E 01:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  If I say it is a commercial failure, it is original research. If IGN, Gamespot, Eurogamer, eWeek, CNet, etc, say it is a commercial failure, it is not. If they make original research, it is not our task to judge. -- ReyBrujo 01:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a different list: "Computer and video games someone has said are commercial failures." That list would be objective and not utilize the subjective criteria of the list being discussed. I'm still not convinced that such a list is encyclopedic, however. JChap T/E

  Films that have been considered the greatest ever, Films considered the worst ever, Computer and video games that have been considered the greatest ever. Maybe renaming it to Computer and video games that have been considered commercial failures is better for you? -- ReyBrujo 02:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as "commercial failure" has written original research all over it. -- Koffieyahoo 00:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep commercial failure is determined by the external references used in the article. While the article may have original research in it the Subject does not. Keep per comment from Richardclavell. In response to Jchap2007's comment above - subjective and verifyable are not inextricably linked and objectivity is not a requirement for verifyability from reliable sources. - Peripitus (Talk) 01:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I respectfully disagree. The American Heritage Dictionary defines subjective as "Proceeding from or taking place within an individual's mind such as to be unaffected by the external world...existing only in the mind; illusory." I don't believe that such a thing is verifiable. On the other hand, so-and-so made such-and-such statement would be objective (and verifiable). But "List of computer games, hardware, etc. that someone has declared to be a commercial failure" still would not be an acceptable list. JChap T/E 01:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep nothing to do with OR. This is an informative and well-referenced list. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Some are clearly objective--ET, PacMan (2600), etc. are clear failures largely responsible for various happenings in the game industry. LactoseTI 02:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, needs some expansion. The list is referenced and original research does not apply here. --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 02:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep This was cited by Kotaku and I have personally found it to be interesting. Perhaps changing the criteria to "hardware or software that does not return its investment" or something as objective. Konman72 02:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (^{chat me up}/_{fix me up}) 02:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this has some pretty good potential. It needs some expansion, but it does not warrant deletion. RandyWang (^{chat me up}/_{fix me up}) 02:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Somewhat reluctantly, delete - the previous, much longer version was terrific, but if it's just going to be this current version, delete. I don't think it's very accurate... Psychonauts, for example, seems to be a "cult hit" and gets a lot of positive reviews... despite very poor sales, I don't consider that a commercial failure. Kat, Queen of Typos 03:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually the very definition of "commercial failure". Sure it was a critical success, and was well received by those that bought it but it was a huge commercial failure. It is usually used as a nech-mark when discussing commercial flops since it bombed so hard the developer had to declare bankruptcy. Just saying. Konman72 03:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeded, bad sales and low profits are what make something a commercial faliure not what the critics thought. An article should not be deleted for applying a term accuratly. --Edgelord 03:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I have reintroduced the removed content with ^{[citation needed]} tags. I'll personally look after this article to make sure that it is given sources in the near future. Dwayne Kirkwood 03:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Richardcave. --Corporal Punishment 03:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The list is referenced. I also disagree with the OR cliam because there are 4 list about games and movies considered the best and worst ever and they survived deletion for a combined total of ten times. None of those articles have been deleted as OR and I don't see anuything significantly different about this list that makes it OR. If anyone want proof I know where to find 9 of them quickly. --Edgelord 03:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per ReyBrujo. It's true that currently much of this article is unreferenced, however, with stringent rules for inclusion and mandatory referencing for each entry it can very be an encyclopedic article, as similarly noted in this AfD. --SevereTireDamage 03:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of automotive flops and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of automobiles that were commercial failures for my reasoning. I need to catch my breath, and just can't explain it again right now. AdamBiswanger1 03:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As a list it seems to be in violation of both Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory. As an article, it is highly subjective and opinion. Displaced Brit 04:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This would benefit from more sources and probably more stringent inclusion criteria, but I see no reason why this can't become a verifiable and encyclopedic article. BryanG^(talk) 04:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as above. Macktheknifeau 04:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I just wanted to point out that while the list of failed gaming consoles is I think, a quite good idea (but what, no Shanda EZ, guys?), a complete list (or okay, only a list of those produced by notable game companies) of video games which were commercial failures would ridiculously long, containing maybe as much as 60%-80% of all games released (after all, this is very much a hit-driven industry), and this even before accounting for vapourware. The number of games released is obviously much higher (thousands more) than the number of automobiles that have been commercially marketed (though the list wouldn't be as large as say, List of commercial failures in fiction publishing or List of commercial failures in the Hollywood movie industry). If the list was only to be selective and so deliberately shortened to a manageable size, then the question arises about how this selection was decided, and if it is a subjective choice. Can someone come up with what this selective criteria would be? Such criteria would also help with the POV/OR objections raised in this discussionBwithh 04:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean, the opening line is a staggering and very misleading understatement about the industry:"The computer and video games industry has seen several commercial failures since its birth in the late 1970s". Only several? (Wow, this must be by far the most successful entertainment media industry of all time). And it should be early 70s, not late 70s. Bwithh 04:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per Bwithh. This is the list that never ends, it just goes on and on my friends... Morgan Wick 05:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per nom. *~Daniel~* ☎ 05:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per nom??? Morgan Wick 05:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, Actually I was trying to say Per above that means same as on above. *~Daniel~* ☎ 06:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In its current state there seems to be a lot of OR, with few entries cited. Also, the title itself implies POV, and would limit the list to games that have been specifically labelled as a "commercial failure" in a primary source, not games that were simply less successful than had been hoped. --Mako 06:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What I would support is moving all the POV and uncited stuff to the talk page and then moving it back to the article as citations are added. The article also needs to be moved to a less POV title Mako 09:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep This is a great article, and only helps to highlight consoles and how the market works. Could use more citations, aswell as less POV. Believe it or not, failure is a part of the industry aswell, and it should be touched upon. Havok (T/C/c) 07:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Actually the article is currently very inaccurate and misleading about "how the market works" Bwithh 14:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep It needs sources, but I love this article. I think it's a great idea for an article, I think it has much encyclopedic value, and I wouldn't dispute that anything mentioned in the article was a failure. -- Kicking222 11:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep I just added a few citations (not hard at all, but I only did hardware, the games themselves might be tougher and therefore may need pruning), and some of 'em are great reads in themselves. Recommended: Gizmondo Bizarro! But I feel the games that can be referenced should also be kept. Bustter 11:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the video games section as excessively inclusive list and Rename list as List of video game console commercial failures as per my objections above. Will revise my vote if someone can come up with reasonable answers to the issues I raise Bwithh 14:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't vouch for all the games but some games do appear to be well sourced. E.T for example is well covered and I don't see any reason to remove that. The game list may need to be limited but I believe that an complete deletion is a mistake. Also the Psychonauts section is well sourced as well --Edgelord 00:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep It has many, many references stating the games as commercial failures (i.e. not OR). If a few entries are uncited, just remove them, move to the talk page, or add a citation needed template, instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Crystallina 14:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete video games section as impossible to keep up and Rename hardware list per Bwithh. Of the thousands of video games released every year, it strikes me as impossible to a) manage the list and b) decide what a commercial failure is. I agree with the editors who say it's too subjective. The 'commercial failures' wikilink doesn't go to a page about what a commercial failure is - it goes to Category:Commercial failure lists, which...(wait for it).. includes this list. I'm going around in circles and it's making me dizzy. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 15:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Gray Porpoise 15:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but any unsourced entries should be removed until they can be WP:Verified. -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 15:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE. While some have sources, alot won't...and it will lead to many edit wars over opinion. RobJ1981 16:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep IF AND ONLY IF each game that is listed has an Independent, reputable, third-party source that Verifies the game was a failure by statements issued by the game designers. Otherwise, this list is OR. No one but the Game designers/publishers know if it is a 'commercial failure'. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 16:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Verify or Delete. Hate to break this list, really, it is quite thorough and interesting, but like dozen of people have mentioned already regarding the commercial failure lists: what is the objective criterion defining commercial failure? Net negative profit? Then you must verify with profit figures.  Cdcon  17:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, interesting and fairly well written article, with some sources. JIP | Talk 19:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep not implicitly vague or original research. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but consider a move. Whether something is regarded as a commercial failure is quite subjective. I would prefer "List of video game products regarded as commercial failures" or some such thing. Deco 21:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is encyclopedic. While subjective, it is passable. --Scienceman123 21:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep AfD is not cleanup. You can set a bar on what's considered a "commercial failure" and back each thing with sources. Therefore, the article can work. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: but delete every entry that doesn't have a citation(or find one for it). The entry for Psychonauts is what every item on this list should look like. Mitaphane _talk 11:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This is one of those iffy articles. I propose that very strict sourcing be used for it. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 11:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment List "too long" or "too difficult to maintain" are not valid arguments. Difficulty simply is not a criterion for deletion; and the sort of expertise required to maintain an entry like this one is not in short supply.
    • Comment: I mean nothing along those lines, it's just not always easy to define a "failure". There could be a lot of POV problems is what I meant. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not OR, most items are referenced in the linked articles, just not on the list. It could use soem clean-up in this regard. Ace of Sevens 22:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agree with Ace of Sevens-- not OR if followed by major references -- Solberg 01:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Solberg[reply]
• Keep, useful. --Kuroki Mio 2006 00:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this is a very useful article, if a bit long. Maybe split into commercial failures by generation? Just thinking out loud here. Definitely keep, though. Ruaraidh-dobson 00:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Request I voted Keep, however I think the article should be renamed "List of *major* commercial failures in computer and video gaming." -- Solberg 05:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Solberg[reply]
  • Seconded There are lots of commercial failures in any industry. Some of them aren't particularly notable. Ace of Sevens 07:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Rename if you have to. I would have closed this a long time ago as speedy keep if not for the very few deletes. SynergeticMaggot 18:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but I do suggest adding a more specific definition of what constitutes "failure". For example, include a sentence saying something like "For purposes of this article failure is defined as reliable, independent news sources referring to the product as performing very poorly in the marketplace." That would help avoid the inclusion of borderline products that some people thought were failures and some don't, and also help avoid uncited inclusions.Dugwiki 22:43, 14 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.