Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cult computer and video games

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. --Shirahadasha 19:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cult computer and video games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Delete - another mass of POV and OR. Otto4711 16:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete to the nth degree What kind of crap is this? This is fails WP:POV so horrible it's patheic. I like how under "notoriously bad games" they have 2 games listed. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Remi 20:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to a section in cult fiction as I'm pretty sure most games are works of fiction. Should obviously be part of that article when it's rewritten. FrozenPurpleCube 00:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 09:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)*[reply]
• Delete - Oh my poor brain. WP:NPOV, and more possibly, WP:COPYVIO of the 2 sources as well. DarkSaber2k 09:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete the article is not good, but I believe the topic deserves an article and could be sourced easily. (For instance, it's hard to find a source about Katamari Damacy that doesn't use the word cult!) This article may or may not be a start for that. — brighterorange (talk) 14:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep / rewrite Would be a shame to lose this one. Its certainly interesting, and could be sourced easily i'm sure. Bjrobinson 14:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, which is a shame since I'm noticing that there's a lot of good material here. The problem is that the material is all original research. Though I agree that the games are all cult hits, the topic as a whole needs a lot more sourcing. While I've got no doubts that the individual items on this could be sourced in list format, the definitions mean the article is O.R. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 14:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Is something having cult status hard to define? Yes. Does that mean we shouldn't have an article on it? No. Tag it with source requests where appropriate and move on. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename to "cult video game", while the article may make claims about the cult status of certain games, that's not a reason to delete. It simply defines shared characteristics of cult games in the same way that cult film does. I would like it if it didn't become a listcrufty mess though, but that's in the future. Axem Titanium 03:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, merge to cult following. Better idea. Axem Titanium 03:50, 5 May 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.