From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep. postdlf ( talk) 18:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC) reply

List of Games with Gold games

List of Games with Gold games (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · [1])
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOT no reason to list games given away for free for 1/2 month each, when there is no way to get them anymore. Gaijin42 ( talk) 21:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC) reply

We have a similar list for games offered through PlayStation Plus, a competing service to Xbox Live. If that list meets the wiki's guidelines, I don't see why this doesn't. Jotamide ( talk) 21:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) • Gene93k ( talk) 22:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I don't see how not being able to obtain something anymore is grounds for deleting the article about it. All these games are documented in sources when they are added to Gold: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] etc. The current sources are bad, but they can be improved. Samwalton9 ( talk) 00:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep; we still have things like List of Humble Bundles. It's slightly trivial, but it's somewhat important to the games' history. Tezero ( talk) 00:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The members of this list have significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. ( ?) Coverage from Polygon alone ( [7]) shows the notability of the updates (also see eurogamer.net, ign.com, or other WP:VG/RS sites), and a list format serves the topic better than an article. WP:NOT is not an argument by itself—a piece of the policy needs to be referenced. As for the PSN list, yes, "other stuff" exists, but an argument should be made for its own merits (though I foresee a similar verdict for that topic). czar  ♔ 00:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - For reasons listed above, as well as the fact that the program is frequently mentioned in articles comparing Sony and Microsoft's offerings, and is therefore relevant to the games industry as a whole. See here: [8] [9] EDIT: While my previous points still stand, I will say that the article shouldn't have been released in its current state for numerous reasons, and the Draft version should e kept while this is deleted. It can be added back to the main namespace once its improved, albeit with a different name as the current title isn't particularly fitting. -- Nicereddy ( talk) 01:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC) reply
It looks like Jotamide had been working on a concurrent draft since before your draft. If anything, you might want to histmerge, but there's no need to send the article to draftspace since AfD is about whether the topic itself is notable. The sources can always be added later. czar  ♔ 02:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC) reply
I've apologized to Jotamide for the miscommunication, moved the page to a better title (List of Games with Gold games), replaced the article content with that of the draft, and requested an article merge. All should be good now, assuming the article isn't deleted. -- Nicereddy ( talk) 03:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • comment There is no doubt that the program itself may be notable. The individual games released under the program are not. Is there coverage of that? Sure. WP:ROUTINE coverage. There's also coverage of every local high school football game. There is no lasting encyclopedic value to say that X years ago, for 15 days a particular game that was way past its peak of popularity was given away tolive subscribers. Gaijin42 ( talk) 15:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Hmm. You raise an interesting point in that Games with Gold itself might be worth an article, with this list incorporated to it. There's quite a lot of coverage of Games with Gold itself which could be used to write a semi decent article around this list: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16] and more. Thoughts? Samwalton9 ( talk) 16:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Maybe it could also support an article (which should be a summary-style expansion from Xbox Live), but I recommend keeping the list separate since it would be unwieldy in such an article. czar  ♔ 18:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • An 18 item list is hardly unwiedly in an article that would be devoted to discussing those 18 items. I definitely think there should be an article about it, and that article should include the list. -- Odie5533 ( talk) 22:59, 26 March 2014 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Games_with_Gold_games&oldid=1086365198"