Deletion of List of video games notable for negative reception

Comment: per . This clearly isn't going to go anywhere, and I really don't see the point of just outright detonating the article because it has some problems. Maybe a page move would work better
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: We have lists of worst other types of media, so why not video games? Also, meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NLIST)

Comment: This list includes only video games that are ''notable'' enough to be considered "bad" games by multiple reliable sources, not by few people without reliable sources. There are plenty of "bad" games around the internet, but many of them aren't notable enough by multiple media to be included in this list. As long the games included in this list are notable, it meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NLIST)

Comment: per  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:SNOW)

Comment: Meets . A clunky title is not sufficient justification for deleting an article such as this. I suggest a rename to list of video games considered the worst, modeled after list of films considered the worst
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NLIST)

Comment: per others. No idea what the nom means by the list being a "POV fork" (it's not), this comes off as  and . The topic of "worst games ever made" is clearly notable, as evident by the amount of proper citations both in the article and what can be found through Google and the https://cse.google.com/cse?cx=003516479746865699832:leawcwkqifq WikiProject's custom reliable source search engine
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:DINC)

Comment: per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: per reasonings provided by editors who have commented before me. The only rationale I could identify from the nominator's rationale is, |I don't like it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: Faulty deletion rationale. List is not a fork. List clearly meets . It is not an arbitrary list of items, it has a defined inclusion criteria on the talk page per . AFD is not cleanup. AFD is not a venue to argue that the page title may need changed. I fail to see how "negative reception" is less neutral than "worst games" besides
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN||WP:LISTCRIT)