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 delete. It appears that there is general consensus here which says that this list is indiscriminatory, Original research and subjective, and these arguments have not be refuted appropriately by the keep arguments. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 13:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Video games that have been considered the greatest ever[edit]

Video games that have been considered the greatest ever (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Per WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, section 9:

Statistics.' Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. Articles which are primarily comprised of statistical data may be better suited for inclusion in Wikisource as freely available reference material for the construction of related encyclopedic articles on that topic. Infoboxes or tables should also be considered to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists.

This article is a list (even though it's not a "List of"-article), consisting of statistic, arranged loosely without any assertion of notability. _→AzaToth 14:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete with fire. Just about every video game on earth has been "considered the greatest ever" by someone. Guy (Help!) 15:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Which isn't actually relevant to this discussion, since this article only covers important video game publications or websites. Jeff Silvers 01:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This is actually a List of video games which have been described using hyperbole. Guy (Help!) 20:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No brainer. Totally subjective, can not be properly cited because of such issues, and inherently unencyclopedic. --Durin 15:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and edit I find this to be a good source, a page that needs to be kept, granted it needs mass overhauling, it still needs kept. There is statistics and there is no possible way to list all the games people conisider/considered great. The best way is through official awards, game magizines attempts, and polls or perhaps even wikipedia. Eventually enough people will edit the artical adding games and sources this will become reliable for finding at the very least good games, which I guarntee users of wikipedia will want. The name does need edited however, it is in my oppinion to long and not centered around the main idea of the artical, least not as good as it could be with a shorter name. We should be talking about the top rated more or less but there is no way to definitivly say "the greatest ever". All and all keep and edit. Asharon 15:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The preceding post (signed Asharon) was edited by an IP and neither userpage nor talkpage nor contributions exist for a user Asharon (as far as I can determine). Is there any policy on signing posts as such? Merely curious, 74.134.255.99 11:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The original post read:

"Keep and edit This is a good source to find top rated games, however the artical is misnamed in my oppinion, it should be top rated or somthing of the sort. The author does back up info it just needs to be edited. Asharon 15:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

Despite the signature, the original and modified posts were both made by 71.59.247.46. Assuming good faith, I'd say that this is a newbie who doesn't know how to sign posts, and doesn't know that you're not supposed to edit posts, even your own. I say don't discount the opinion based on this breach of the rules. Jaksmata 14:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete urgh. Nick 15:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Re-tool into an article called "List of video games that have received the highest ratings" or something like that, because while this list is more objective than it could be (say, "Video games that have been considered the greatest ever by Messedrocker"), it still could be better. We could have the cutoff at winning first place in reliable publications. Failing this, delete the article. (messedrocker • talk) 15:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This was Previously nominated last year and the result was Keep. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 15:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_can_change --Durin 15:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Did you have grounds for that Keep there? For my part, Delete per above. This is an indiscriminate mishmash that could be applied to dozens of games, as witness the numerous sources giving their "greatest" accolade (such as it's worth) to several games.  RGTraynor  16:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I would strongly suggest everyone (including the closing admin) to read the previous AFD as there was a lot of discussion on this topic already --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 17:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. The concept has some merit, and there do appear to be well defined inclusion criteria to this list. However, given the sheer quantity of entries - due both to the large number of competing sources for the pronouncement of "Best Game Ever" as well as the often annual change of said pronouncement in any given source - the distinction of having been considered the best game ever has been diluted to a matter of trivial importance. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Definitely POV, different people are likely to consider different games to be "the greatest ever". It's like a personal essay, and hence should be gone.--Kylohk 15:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the article is premised on incurable POV. Otto4711 16:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep as I'm actually a bit shocked such a well-referenced article that a previous debate voted to keep would even come up on this again. Borderline speedy keep. --164.107.222.23 16:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As much as I love the concept of having a list of really good games, there's no way this article could ever meet Wikipedia standards. The name of the article itself implies POV. If there was a published list, from a well known source, with secondary sources showing its notability, that would be fine. Compare, for example, Rolling Stone's 100 Greatest Guitarists of All Time. That list was created by a magazine well known even outside its genre, and the list has been critiqued by other well known publications. Jaksmata 16:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Again as mentioned this article would never meet Wikipedia standards and has a lot of POV content. Definitely needs to be deleted. Xtreme racer 19:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This article does not contain anything at all encyclopedic. We're writing an encyclopedia, not a report. Extremely POV, biased, infringes WP:NOTE and several issues on WP:NOT. NSR77 ^T_C 19:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article is outrageously biased towards Nintendo. Very little content is featured on the Playstation Two, and virtually no content on the Xbox. Nothing on the Next Gen. systems, either. NSR77 ^T_C 19:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep The article Television Shows Considered The Greatest Ever just came through AfD, with the result of keep; same arguments apply to this article. I think the formatting of the TV article is a lot clearer than this one, and should be looked at as a good model. I agree that the video game version has gotten a bit muddled and should be cleaned up.Capmango 19:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notice the important difference in wording: it's not "Television shows that have been considered the greatest ever", like something was number 1 once. Here its a muddle of ancient history (by video gaming standards), current (or sort of current) sources, and the list can only grow because once considered the greatest it fits the list "have been...". Therefore, the comparison with the tv or film articles is inapt. Carlossuarez46 00:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Subjective. Anyway, Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate collection of video game scores. If Edge or similar did a "100 Greatest Games" feature, it would be fine to include it. CloudNine 19:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edge did to a 100 greatest games feature. The #1 choice was Ocarina of Time. That is mentioned in this very article, so why are you voting to delete? Capmango 20:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete per CloudNine. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to Admin I'm wondering how many folks voting for delete actually looked at the article, given the number of arguments that it is "totally subjective". From the title it would appear so, but like its sister articles for films and TV shows, it is actually an objective summary of notable sources that chose a greatest game ever, which is a very different thing. Capmango 20:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe it is highly subjective, and yes I did look at the article first. --Durin 20:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but help me understand what you think is subjective. Is it that the sources themselves have been subjective in choosing their games, or that the article is subjective in choosing the sources? The winner of the Oscar for best picture is subjective, too, but we still list them in articles. Capmango 21:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Read it. Delete and bury in a lead-lined casket. An ad hoc collection of non notable fluff; correctly referencing such fluff does not prevent the whole thing amounting to bollocks. --Tagishsimon (talk)
• Keep and retool as per User164.5 and Campango. After reading the article, I see that it is well-researched and based on the opinions of the gaming magazines, rather than the author's opinion. Campango's analogy to the Oscars is apt. A list going back to the 1970s would illustrate the changing nature of the industry. The title should be changed to something less subjective-sounding. Mandsford 23:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - but it needs to be re-written as a list with a strong inclusion criterion. --Haemo 00:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete inherently POV and subjective: and contrary to Capmango, the choice of sources is inherently POV and subjective too. Various zines come out with rankings, ratings, etc. for video games, and it changes over time. Even the article isn't what it claims - of what purpose to include 1994's best games when the same source in 2005 after considering also came out between 1994 & 2005 dropped all of 1994's games from its "greatest ever". In 1972, Pong was the greatest ever, but by 2005 it paled in comparison. Carlossuarez46 00:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If this article were about the video games Wikipedians think are the best ever, sure, that'd be pretty subjective, but this is about video games which have been accepted by several important, mainstream video game media outlets as having been the greatest (either by reader survey or by consensus of the editors). There's no subjectivity issue here since we're just reporting what the majority of notable video game publications and websites have said. Jeff Silvers 01:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. Article seems to be organized in an arbitrary manner?—a list of lists, with poorly defined criteria for secondary sources that should be deemed worthy of citation. What it lacks in readability, it more than makes up for in superfluity to Wikipedia's goals. Per the Oscar argument, the Academy Awards are one source, not a haphazard collection of internet articles of varying notability. Cruft such as this sets poor precedent for future wikipedia articles. Validusername 10:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with just about everything you are saying here, but this is almost all an argument for clean-up, not for delete. There are good solid sources in the gaming world, and games are as big and important an industry as movies or TV. Capmango 15:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article is not POV because it does not assert a list of the "Greatest Video Games Ever", it gives sources opinions on what the greatest game ever is. The article is well sourced, as well. Besides, I like this article and there are other "Greatest/Worst Ever" lists for films, and songs. --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 17:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I found one for TV shows too. I notice that many of the Greatest/Worst Ever lists have come up for deletion lately, and have ended in keep. There doesn't seem to be a consensus to remove this type of list. --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 01:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete dosen't belong on an encyclopedia, (would you find this on Britannica?) POV, more of a list of game scores. Anyone can put thier favorite game on the list and call it the best ever. GreaterWikiholic 22:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Lots of sources and a good article. Also maybe rename to "List of video games considered the greatest ever"? カラム 02:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong KEEP - Some of these games have so obviously been considered the best ever that they don't even need sources, and the fact that sources are provided just proves the already obvious sentiment. This article is important factually, and unlike most of the people who say that this is fan rubbish (they are probably also non-gamers who no nothing about gaming), the games on here are FAMOUS in the gaming world. Zelda, 007, these are among the titles that NO ONE CAN DISPUTE, and there are many others, so this needs to stay to maintain the factual accuracy and comprehensiveness of this encyclopedia.Paaerduag 07:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remember I did nominate the article for an other reason. _→AzaToth 09:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just FYI I am a gamer and I still think this list should go. Try to assume good faith. Whispering 14:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I don't see the problem. It's not POV, it's sourced, and it's interesting. Unless someone wants to go ahead and nominate every "list of X" article on Wikipedia for deletion, I don't see why this one would deserve special treatment. That being said, it certainly is improvable, but not being perfect is not a reason for deletion. -- Schneelocke 09:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A subjective list, with extreme bias, list can never be completed even if kept. Whispering 14:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete per User:Whispering. -- Magioladitis 19:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and reorganise. This is, however, a list that in and of itself may invite other violations--I can imagine it being hit by less mature readers who would insist Stick Figure Fighter 99 is the best ever and so totally better than Immortal Combat 43. As it is, it's an honest attempt to compile games that have been considered as such, and seems free of bias from the writer. The writer's sources may be biased in one direction, and as for an earlier question ... how can the latest (as of this time, PS3/Wii/XBox 360) games be listed, considering how new they are? The article is getting a bit full, though--some trimming would be better. As for being subjective..yes, it's an inherently subjective matter. At least this has multiple opinions, rather than arbitrary fiat. But it needs some more work! IL-Kuma 08:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and probably do a bit of a rewrite on it. We have a similar article for films [[1]] so I don't see why we should discriminate against videogames. Communisthamster 17:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The fact that we have other articles like this article isn't relevant. What is relevant is the fact that the article breaks policy. Whispering 18:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but edit. Shouldn't there be a best selling section? The Sims isn't even listed on this page, though it and the others in the series were top for many years.

• Strong Keep There's other articles for books, films, and whatnot. Just revamp the article with specific categories, or something similar.
• Weak keep It's probably a good resource for seeing what is perceived as making a game great and how those characteristics change over time, but it's largely listcruft and open to vandalism and OR. M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:50, 25 June 2007 (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.