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.
To add, while there are similar lists for PSN games and other services, I do not want to do a mass AFD until there's clearly rationale from this and the Epic Games to justify going forward. --
Masem (
t)
16:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)reply
To add more, I reviewed the first AFD , from 2014, and I suggest !voters compare that to the arguments in the Epic Games Store one. I think the first basically was kept on a a mass-voted "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" argument, but that was rejected in the Epic Games Store list. --
Masem (
t)
16:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Not seeing what you mean by "mass voting". I don't see a pile on on a "we have other lists like this argument", the only such "other list" call out is to the PS+ free games list.
Gianttrombone (
talk)
04:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep Pretty useful and visited list as for me with interwikies that are not updated regularly unlike the English one though( There are no
WP:NOT#CATALOG issues, since there are no prices, availability can be verified all over the web with prescribed “independent sources” (a-ka “mainstream media”) with “commentaries.” There are no comparisons of games with these games themselves on other platforms/storefronts too (eg. where one is cheaper or so).
I disagree with
Masem's take “the list helps no one else in the future,” since the list is helpful within every 15–31 days span: you may see that there are different games being offered for different regions, so you may timely migrate your account and redeem additional/other games (per
WP:NOT#CATALOG: “Prices and product availability can vary widely from place to place and over time. Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices and availability of a single product from different vendors or retailers” – I've hinted above that products not compete, they (games offered) complement each other, plus there are different products for different countries (we may see separate games for Japan, South Africa, Singapore and the likes every other month). --
pr12402, 30 December, 2019
Question: Would you interpret wiki policy as ruling out a list of all Xbox games? What about a list of Xbox games that meet some non-monetary criterion? Some monetary criterion other than "they were free on the Store once"?
Gianttrombone (
talk)
04:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)reply
No, lists of games published for a platform is fine (as long as we have sourcing to support them - with the rise of indie games we cannot be fully inclusive for any indie game). There, there's no monetary factor or sales factor involve but to give an idea of the size of the game library and comparitive dates and releases. --
Masem (
t)
01:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Games with Gold is effectively a storefront, and we do not list out all the products a storefront offers. A straight-up list of games for a system is not a storefront, it's documenting the notable titles that can be played on a game system which DOES have encyclopedic (not just useful) value. --
Masem (
t)
06:23, 1 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Redirect: This question is borderline for me. I think the topic easily clears
WP:LISTN but on balance, it also ends up being a shopping list and thus fails
WP:NOTDIR. I would support delete but I don't like wiki page deletion on principle except when there is no other legal or ethical option due to deletion being nearly unrecoverable. And also, in this particular case, I suspect this particular page is borderline for many other people as well. So, I recommend we replace the page text with a redirect to the Gold page rather than permadeleting the page. As well as making it possible to bring back the page without administrative DB fishing, it will also make it so the information can be gradually parted out and migrated to the individual game pages.
Gianttrombone (
talk)
04:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)reply
"deletion being nearly unrecoverable." This is not true. Any mod or admin can restore a deleted article. There is no such thing as "permadeleting"; if you're referring to
WP:SALT, articles can be de-salted by contacting the protecting admin or through the deletion review process. "We shouldn't burn our bridges" is simply not a valid argument at AfD.--
Martin IIIa (
talk)
03:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. If the list of Epic Game Store free games was deleted, this should be by the same token, as it's no different at all.ZXCVBNM (
TALK)04:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete, this is absolutely trivia and not even useful trivia at that. This is a list of games that used to be free but no longer so Too Bad You Didn't Get Them Neener Neener Neener.
Axem Titanium (
talk)
01:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - I'm also in the delete column here. No matter how you frame it, it really comes off as extremely trivial. That's not what a list article should contain.
Red Phoenixtalk12:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep I think the List of Games with Gold games should be kept as it is a useful source to confirm whether a title has ever been made available in this program. The reason I'm stating this is because one's Xbox Live Gold account doesn't record which titles one has obtained in this program (ie there is no purchase history) so it's essential to have this resource that one can check to confirm that the title was available as a Games with Gold title when one suspects that a title may have been removed from one's Ready to install list and therefore one becomes prompted to re-purchase it. This is even more important now that titles are being added to GamePass (all variations) when such titles are only in the GamePass system for a limited time (ie when removed from GamePass then the possibility exists that users may once again get prompted to re-purchase).
User:FrathosCAN
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.