Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Instant Game Collection games (North America)


 * 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)

List of Instant Game Collection games (North America)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:NOT in particular WP:NOTCHANGELOG and WP:10YT. WP:FANCRUFT Hell, its of zero value the very next month after the game is no longer "free". It is of zero encyclopedic value in 10 years to say that for one month, a game was "given" away to people who paid for a subscription. We might as well have List of issues of Cosmopolitan magazine Gaijin42 (talk) 15:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep It would have been a good idea for you to wait for the similar AfD you started to finish first; the outcome is likely to be the same for both articles. Still, my rationale is basically the same as there, there are many sources documenting these games being part of the collection. Samwalton9 (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Samwalton9 (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There are many sources documenting my local high school team games too, but we don't make a list of them. WP:ROUTINE coverage is not encyclopedic. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - For reasons listed at the related Articles for deletion/List of Games with Gold games discussion, and in addition: the initial availability time varies between games, with some available for one year+ and once games are added to a PSN user's download list they are in fact available for free forever (as long as they are a Plus member). Therefore they are notable, some more than others of course but that's not the point. Examples are Gravity Rush, Uncharted: Golden Abyss and Wipeout 2048 which have all been initially available for 1 year 4 months to date. —Dell9300 (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a direct analog to Articles for deletion/List of Games with Gold games, and thus my argument is identical except for the subject swap. The coverage is significant, widespread, and from multiple sources. Moreover, the coverage is national, unlike that of most high school sports teams. And if any of the examples in WP:ROUTINE were in multiple reliable sources, there would be little question of their notability, and the case is similar here. The Cosmo example is off-putting, as to insinuate that the magazine is less worthy of a list than, say, a bunch of other stuff: List of Doctor Who – Battles in Time issues, List of TV Guide covers, List of Playboy (Brazil) covers, List of Granta issues, List of Baseline magazine issues, List of Emigre magazine issues, List of Atari Age issues, List of Mad issues, etc. This is to say that there can be encyclopedic need for lists of issues and that I don't believe it falls under WP:ROUTINE. Re: the WP links in the OP—it doesn't help to just link to a policy. I think this list would pass the ten-year test as a list of titles Sony contributed to a lasting public game collection. And, by WP:IINFO itself, this list would be fine since it has third-party coverage. Lastly, the fancruft essay is more about how the term is pejorative used by editors who don't like a niche pop culture subject, and it recommends to cite actual WP policy instead.  czar  ♔  18:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - This list is helpful to contextualize the difference in the offerings of Sony and Microsoft's respective subscription services, and will be useful to readers for many years to come. You imply that this is unimportant the second the game leaves the program, but that'd be akin to implying that it would be useless to list episodes of television shows after they're no longer aired on television. It's still relevant, albeit not accessible in the same form at present. A decade from now, I don't doubt that this topic will be researched by peoples interested in why the PlayStation 4 or Xbox One was more successful than the other, as the comparison between their respective offerings is vital in understanding the general consumer's mindset as to the quality of their respective services. To imply that this isn't relevant to an encyclopedia like Wikipedia is to ignore the potentially huge impact of these programs on the future of the games industry. --Nicereddy (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per above and comments at Articles for deletion/List of Games with Gold games. ansh 666 05:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - I am the user who originally decided to add in the column of when games are deleted. I am not the one who decided to separate the Instant Game Collection into a NA and PAL list though. I loved this list, because it showed me which games were previously given away for free and thus would not be given away for free in the future. This list also proved valuable, because it gave me insight into the quality of the games that were being released for free and whether or not it was worthwhile to subscribe to the service. About the removed date column, my original goal was to give people an idea of how much time a game may last for free as part of the service and if a game was removed. By doing this, I hoped that people would be able to see whether or not a game was still offered when they subscribed to the service. PS Fan Boy (talk) 05:37, 29 March 2014 (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.