Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Epic Games Store giveaways


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Owen&times; &#9742;  16:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

List of Epic Games Store giveaways

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails NOTCATALOG. A similar page listing these was deleted in 2019 Articles for deletion/List of free Epic Games Store games. Info about the free giveaways can be kept at the main EGS page M asem (t) 15:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. M asem  (t) 15:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete As per the previous nom, same reason; WP:NOTPROMO. This would be like us listing Black Friday deals from KMart for every year; it's pointless to the regular reader and none of the deals apply any longer, and this shouldn't even be listed in the main article.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 16:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per my comment last time - it's about as literal of a WP:NOTCATALOGUE violation as it can get. Sergecross73   msg me  17:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, there needs to be a stated reason why listing giveaways is encyclopedic. The data is interesting but more within the purview of a different Wiki project or site. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: Listing past giveaways is like collecting dust bunnies. It's not relevant and just clutters the page. Regular readers wouldn't even find outdated deals helpful, and it seems like a better fit for a different website.  Waqar 💬 15:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTPROMO and WP:INDISCRIMINATE ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete a list of giveaways doesn't seem fit for Wikipedia as it doesn't look encyclopedic JuniperChill (talk) 21:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTDB and WP:NOTADVERT.  MK  at your service.  03:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * (To be clear, I meant info about the free giveaway program can be merged if that info is not already present at EGS, since I know some of the same info is already there; and not about merging the list of free games). — M asem (t) 04:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep as a notable standalone list. The 2019 deletion was later reviewed and restored.WP:NOTCATALOG links to WP:LISTCRITERIA that insists that the selection criteria must be supported by reliable sources, otherwise it's not encyclopedic. There are three reliable per WP:VG/S sources that are or were maitaining the list with the same selection criteria, and one situational per VG/S source  that maintains somewhat simliiar list. That shows encyclopedic merit and makes NOTCATALOG not applicable here. The only reason we don't list KMart Black Fridays is because there are no reliable sources listing them. That's also the reason why the similiar list was deleted in 2019, there were no third-party sources back then.I also fail to see how WP:NOTPROMO is applicable here since the article is already written in objective and unbiased style and only uses third-party reliable sources.The "pointless for the regular reader" argument is not valid (WP:USELESS). A particle for world to form (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It was restored to draftspace but that doesn't mean it was considered appropriate for mainspace. — M asem (t) 17:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ...but then this draft was submitted and later accepted as appropriate for mainspace. Admin who initially deleted the list in 2019 found my arguments against NOTCATALOGUE "pretty uncontrovercial", and the users who reviewed draft submissions were eventually convinced, too. (honestly the amount of bureaucracy in enwiki is overwhelming. I'm fine with both deleting and keeping the article, but I'd like to be able to know whether found reliable sources are enough for notability after just one discussion, and preferably before I've spend entire day writing an article. It's literally the third time I'm debating the same arguments) A particle for world to form (talk) 17:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Just because it went through an Articles for Creation process doesn't mean it has wide consensus to be in mainspace. Yes, there are a few RSes that do track this, that doesn't mean it is necessarily avoiding NOTCATALOG. As others have said above and in the previous AFD, these were still one time giveaways, it helps little for the general reader to know this information. That we can point to reliable RSes as external links in the main EGS article should be sufficient for that information. — M asem (t) 18:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * > it is necessarily avoiding NOTCATALOG What part of NOTCATALOG is broken exactly?There's at least one application for this list for general reader: determining whether the current giveaway is brand new, or was this game already given away before. Ruwiki article's viewership peaks at every new giveaway, and it becames one of the most viewed article sitewise during holiday season (with daily giveaways). E. g. in December 2023 ru:Список игр, розданных в Epic Games Store was 454th most viewed article in Russian Wikipedia (of more than 1.8 mil articles), with over 60% of its monthly views occured in December 21st onwards. So I strongly disagree that this article is helpless. Although, once again, arguments of both mine and yours are not valid (WP:USEFUL/WP:USELESS). A particle for world to form (talk) 19:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Which is why NOTCATALOG still applies. We don't list giveaways/free offers from other storefronts like Steam, GOG, or even the Xbox or PlayStation store. Keeping in mind that WP:NOTCATALOG's six points are not meant to be fully inclusive of what is considered, this list is somewhere a mix of #5 (electronic program guides) and #6 (resource for doing business). When a game was available for free is effectively a price guide. Why stop there and include when games went on sale? I know there are sites that track sales from multiple PC storefronts, but just because they exist is not a reason to have a list of them here. M asem (t) 20:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Why are we even considering other storefronts, isn't this WP:OTHER? Wikipedia is solely based on reliable sources. We don't list offers from other storefronts because there are no third-party reliable sources doing the same listing. That's also the reason we don't track sales, as we aren't considering unofficial databases reliable (and also because this is too much data to fit in one article).Why there aren't reliable sources for other storefronts? Probably because Epic Games chose a pretty novel marketing strategy, no other storefront ever made persistent perennial giveaway chain to atract new users. Also because Steam giveaways are being organized by individual publishers, not Steam itself, so it's weird to put them in a common list. But neither of this is our concern; the availability of the sources is.NOTCATALOG #6 only forbids product information "unless there is an independent source and encyclopedic significance for the mention". And I don't see how this list is en electronic program guide. A particle for world to form (talk) 22:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @A particle for world to form I second @Masem's statement. I personally believed that article was ready for mainspace, but that does not mean that there is consensus. I was the sole reviewer of that draft. When you submit a draft to AfC, it gets reviewed by a reviewer, not all of them.
 * I will further review policies, and formulate a decision soon about this discussion. OnlyNanotalk 22:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. (I AM THE AFC REVIEWER OF THIS ARTICLE)I personally believe this person has no conflict of interest, and it just doesn't feel promotional at all. Epic Games giveaways make news, such as The Verge, where single promotions are published, and of course, the linked PC Gamer articles, which just keep up-to-date info. This data is helpful, but I couldn't see myself (if they could print this much) opening up an encyclopedia, and seeing a list of Epic Games promotions.Therefore, I do not agree with deleting this article due to reasons such as WP:NOTCATALOG, and instead deleting it under WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I don't see it being something encyclopedic. OnlyNanotalk 22:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTIINFO/WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Promotional article for Epic Games. Ajf773 (talk) 10:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think WP:INDISCRIMINATE is the correct policy to apply here. Charcoal feather (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to Epic Games Store giveaways EGS strategy of giveaways is a notable phenomena and articles in reputable outlets have been written about it eg https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/12/22380895/epic-games-store-afford-give-away-17-5-billion-free-games https://www.ign.com/articles/epic-is-losing-hundreds-of-millions-as-it-battles-to-gain-market-share-from-steam  https://www.pcgamer.com/tim-sweeney-says-epic-games-store-giveaways-help-boost-sales-on-other-platforms/ and https://www.tomshardware.com/video-games/pc-gaming/epic-store-unprofitable-but-keeps-giving-away-free-games. Within that article it makes sense to have a list of games with sources. But it should not be titled as a list and should not function simply as a list which would indeed be WP:DIRECTORY  User:J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The main Epic Games Store does discuss in depth the free giveaway program, and more about losses are at the Epic Games v. Apple page, but that does justify the need to have the full list ofb100+ games given away, or at least this us something easily put in via an external link to an RS that is tracking them M asem (t) 19:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There would be too much of a WP:OVERLAP with the main Epic Games Store article for this to be a viable option. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename. I find the above argument a good alternative to deletion for this article. -- asilvering (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * 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.