Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Steam titles (2nd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus. Scott Mac (Doc) 17:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

List of Steam titles
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

At one point htis list might have been useful, but now that Steam is so popular it's become an unwieldy and unmaintainable list. EeepEeep (talk) 01:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is a catalog.  What's another word for catalog listing?  Directory?  Oh yeah, WP:NOTDIR.   JBsupreme  ( talk ) 01:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. So what if it is popular?. Is it wrong to be popular?. The list is maintainable when they are user who maintains. Currently iam maintaining it by finding sources and updating the list. Anyone can maintain it if they wanted to. --SkyWalker (talk) 05:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - You miss the point. When Steam was a small service this list may have had a purpose by illustrating the types of games available on the service, but now it's a major service with hundreds of games.  There is no encyclopedic benefit in listing every single one of them; anyone can just go to Steam and look for themselves. EeepEeep (talk) 07:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. When I look at the list of people who have made constructive edits to this page in the past 500 edits, I see enough variety of editor names and few enough edit wars and reverts to conclude that the page is actively maintained.  Esteemed edtior EeepEeep seems to have missed this.  As to the question of whether it is "unwieldy", that would be a fair avenue of criticism, but you don't improve unwieldy by deleting the thing - you improve it by forking the page into multiple smaller pages that each address a portion of the information, restructuring its contents, or otherwise refactoring.  WP:BETTER.  Edward Vielmetti (talk) 06:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll also repeat esteemed editor Sabre's comments from the last AfD, which have not been materially changed by six months of time passing.  Requiring occasional updating as time goes on doesn't mean its "barely maintainable". Some of the titles might not be notable, but most are - either way that factor is irrelevant. The analogy to a "list of DVDs available through Netflix" misses the mark considerably; its more comparable to the likes of List of Games for Windows titles, List of WiiWare games, List of Xbox Live Arcade games and other similar gaming lists, especially as the service has moved beyond mere distribution. A deficit in sources for release dates and the like is the list's only major drawback, though they are readily available online. -- Sabre (talk) 18:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm completely aware of the number of editors. But the question remains, what is the encyclopedic benefit of this list, even if broken down into smaller lists? EeepEeep (talk) 07:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete not really encyclopedic and any really notable content could be mentioned on Steam (content delivery). The individual game articles dont appear to think Steam is notable as it is not mentioned on the few I looked at. MilborneOne (talk) 11:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a sales directory. This is different from "List of Games for Windows" in that there, Microsoft has to approve of the title and that it meets certain specifications and requiremetns before it is added to the service; same with List of XBLA games or List of WiiWare games. Here, it's just the business deals between the game owner and Steam; it is a non-distinction. Also, unlik the GfW/XBLA/WiiWare games, there are plenty of other download service companies like D2D and GOG that offer the same products, so there is nothing special about Steam here. --M ASEM  (t) 16:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. User:Masem made a convincing argument. This is a list of software sold through a particular distribution channel. Are we going to have a List of iTunes Store songs? As for List of WiiWare games and List of Xbox Live Arcade games, the analogy isn't very good. Valve is not the only (or even a) PC manufacturer, so they don't have anything like the official branding those stores have. But I think those should be deleted as well per WP:NOTCATALOG. Pcap ping  16:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I disagree that Xbox Live list is the similar nature. Again, there is a list of requirements that games have to go through to be put up through Xbox Live, and you just can't add them at will.  It is a vetted list of games, not arbitrary as it is with Steam. As only one or two games are released per week on it, they get noticed in gaming journalism. Thus, it is hard pressed to call that list (or the Games for Windows, or the WiiWare games) as directories since there is a very selective measure for what actually gets released on those systems. --M ASEM  (t) 17:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And to add to this: Steam is not a unique distribution platform - nearly all games on it can be/were purchasable from other vendors. On the other hand, XBLA is a unique platform for most of the games on that list. It is thus comparable to our lists of games for various consoles. --M ASEM  (t) 17:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree - Steam is a general distribution channel for all types of games. Equivalent articles would be List of games sold at Gamestop or List of games sold on Amazon.com.  There's nothing intrinsically common to the elements of this list except that they can be bought at the same place.  And it's not even the only place they're sold. EeepEeep (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  16:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  16:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Oh, I'm referred to as an "esteemed editor". I like that! In any case, having made efforts since the last AfD to cleanup and maintain this article, I eventually gave up with it: trying to keep it up to date was basically a full time job and I had better things to do. No-one really took up the mantle and as a result, what we have here is a bit shit, lets be honest. Count me neutral in the whole affair, regardless of what I said at the last AfD. If this article does stay, perhaps a better approach would be to go with Steam-only games, games specifically tied into the Steamworks system through proper business deals and deliberate programming and development in the same way a game might be linked into XBLA, etc, rather than listing every game regardless of the fact it can be acquired through other means. That sort of list would be far more useful, less directory-like and much more maintainable. -- Sabre (talk) 23:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be a good idea, both WP:NOTDIR and maintenance wise. If you know what to prune to get just the Steam-only titles, you should fork the list while it's still around. Pcap ping  23:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't personally have the time to do that at the moment, and its a process I think would probably be easier from the ground up rather than through pruning, to be honest. -- Sabre (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I can sort-of see the WP:NOTDIR concern here. However, the large majority of items listed have their own WP articles, and this is a proper way of aggregating related items with some annotation (hence not just a cat). LotLE × talk  23:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, I agree with Lulu that the delete side has a strong case. I also think it's true that it is becoming increasingly difficult to keep the list more or less complete.  But I still find it a useful article, and I think there should be a little leeway in the rules for list articles that are useful.  Some may argue this shouldn't be a factor, but it also appears that this article is quite well traveled (several hundred page hits per day), which makes it different from most AfDs I've seen.  Were this article to be deleted, I think quite a lot of people would miss it and the function it serves, and I think Wikipedia would be a little worse off because of it.  TastyCakes (talk) 06:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I also don't really see the difference between this and List of Wii games and List of Xbox 360 games, if those don't classify as catalogs, why does this? Those lists are similarly sprawling and I suspect difficult to maintain, perhaps more so since some games may only be released in certain regions on those platforms.  TastyCakes (talk) 06:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * How is an out of date list based on a single source useful when anyone can go check out the list of titles from Steam's own site? Pcap ping  06:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I can only answer for myself, but I would rather look through a Wikipedia list than the Steam site list for two main reasons: first it's all in one place so you don't have to click through dozens of screens, all taking some time to load because it's such a graphics heavy site. Second, I can click on any of the games and read the Wikipedia article on it which (should be) a more balanced view of it than the marketing spiel Steam will have.  I agree though, having the list out of date and incomplete reduces the usefulness, but I think that can be fixed.  Regardless, correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think "it's available elsewhere on the internet" is a valid reason for deleting an article.  Anyway, I'm not too choked up about this one, like I said you guys have some good points, I just don't think Wikipedia benefits from deleting this article.  TastyCakes (talk) 06:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm not convinced this is under WP:NOTDIR. Although the above 'fix' would to have the list only include games that are only (or primarily) purchased through steam, which seams like a more maintainable list. MrMacMan  Talk  07:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete There are many other online shops similar to steam, and indeed it got much more popular and features probably thousands of titles in the future. Whats next, List of titles sold at walmarkt? GBK2010 (talk) 08:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is not like "List of games published by X"; Steam is a distribution method, and a rapidly expanding one. It wont be long before it is comparable to something like "List of games available for sale in [insert high street retailer]", or "List of games distributed on CD-ROM". Any titles that are noteworthy because they have been distributed via Steam should be mentioned at Steam (content delivery) with an appropriate citation. Marasmusine (talk) 10:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Pretty much per Marasmusine, Steam is churning out far too many games every year to maintain a list on Wikipedia which is accurate. The only source relates to the Steam website. If one wishes to find information about a game, they can look there for the name and then look up the specific article on Wikipedia should they so wish. A huge list of titles is not going to be of benefit to anyone. We are not a directory of information, we are an encyclopaedia. Regards, --— Cyclonenim | Chat 16:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep as per Lulu and TastyCakes. yes, I can see that WP:NOTDIR might apply, but as has also been mentioned, this is very similar to pages like List of Xbox 360 games. If the eventual outcome of this discussion is deletion, then a category for games sold via Steam should be created in it's place. RWJP (talk) 10:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete It's completely unusable. If anyone wants to find a list of games available they can go to steam's website Mike409 (talk) 05:25, 6 February 2010 (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.