Deletion of Video games notable for negative reception (2nd nomination)

Comment: 1. Not indiscriminate. This list is not indiscriminate, in the sense that not everything could be on there: it has to have a sourced statement that the game is notable for negative reception. Sources like http://www.gametrailers.com/player/16066.html the most disappointing games are used, and are adequate. 2. The argument of the nominator rests on a single point: ''"all of this information can be covered on their respective articles"''. This point is blatantly false and goes against the reason to have lists like List of Chinese philosophers, List of topics in philosophy of mind and Films considered the greatest ever at all. I suggest the nominator gives ists a good read. I also suggest the nominator withdraws because the debate is unlikely to have a different conclusion than the last one, but this really is just a suggestion, unlike the rest of this argumentation, which has a pressing and generally not nice tone
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:L)

Comment: The article is well referenced and sourced, any clean-up work needed should be highlighted so it can be done. There's nothing in  which stands against this list, in letter or spirit, the list is an answer to a perfectly reasonable question. Putting the information into individual articles destroys a line of research and benefits nobody. Anyone needing that information would quickly give up Wikipedia if they had to check each game article for titles released on major platforms from here right the way back to the Atari 2600 era
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: Sometimes games are notable because they are good. Other times, they are notable because they are appalingly bad. For balance, both should be remembered equally. Also, I think it's starting to |snow
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: It has clear criteria the problem is that 'negative' is subjective and some of it seems to consist of original interpretations of reviews which is in violation of . A rescue may be possible if enough source are available but it looks like it needs alot of work and alot of the page may have to be removed. --neonwhite
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)