Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of best-selling computer and video games


 * 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. --Daniel Olsen 03:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

List of best-selling computer and video games


Original research. Article does not and can not meet WP:V. Approximately the entire article is unsourced and I believe it would be impossible to find verifiable sources for the majority of the entries. The state of the article is extremely poor despite being over a year old and I don't see how it can greatly improve. Dionyseus 06:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Withdraw nomination I am content with the current version of the article, with all the unsourced entries removed.  Dionyseus 22:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep, close per it being a bad faith nomination. The only time the user ever suggested that the article should be deleted is because a website, VGCharts, had been proven to be a poor source for Wikipedia, and when that happened, the user talked about deleting it if they are removed. And how can you not see how it can be salvaged? Just because a page which is no better than a Geocities page isn't verifiable does not mean that NeoGAF, IGN, GameSpot, et al. are suddenly not verifiable. At no point is it insisted that the article have exact numbers, either. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * First of all the only reason I suggested the article be deleted is because most of the entries are unsourced due to the fact that the majority of the entries were sourced by VGCharts which was recently removed by A Link to the Past. Secondly, I was not the only user to suggest the article be deleted, several users have recently stated that they think the article should be deleted due to unverifiability.  If you or someone can greatly improve the state of the article, I'd gladly remove the nomination, unfortunately I do not think that is possible.  Dionyseus 06:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And you can prove it unverifiable how so? We get NPD, Media Create, Famitsu, etc. information every week (NPD every month). And VGCharts was deleted because no one could prove verifiability and the one supporting it the most more or less gave up. How can you claim unverifiability when we have several multi-million dollar companies who provide sales information for all three major regions? Their existence shows verifiability. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If the majority of the article could have been sourced by NPD, Media Create, and Famitsu it would have had those sources by now. Dionyseus 06:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You mean because people were actively searching for replacement links to VGCharts, right? The fact that I have not worked my ass off to get sources for this article does not indicate that they are not anywhere in the universe. NPD numbers are verifiable, and NPD numbers are available. Tah-dah. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If there's enough NPD data to source the majority of the entries then by all means please do source them, I however believe that such data is not available for the majority of the entries.  Dionyseus 06:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And your only evidence is your ability to say "because I said so". How did you come to the idea that the article cannot be sourced? Challenge: Prove it or close AfD. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Reliable data will never be fully available because the NPD Group does not release sales numbers to the public. Only Japanese numbers are made available (and even then usually just top 10 or top 30 per week). Maybe this should be deleted. TJ Spyke 06:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are. Anyone with enough money can subscribe to NPD. Additionally, Famitsu does a top 500 every year. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's say user X becomes a client of NPD, we still would be unable to use his information because it is unverifiable. How can we know whether or not the data user X is presenting actually came from NPD, how can we know that user X has not modified that information?  Dionyseus 21:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Strong and Speedy Keep. 1) The whole point of Wikipedia is to improve articles, and this article has plenty of room for improvement. Our goal should be to fix the article. 2) If the article doesn't have sources, find some. If you can't find them, then nominate it for deletion. If no sources can be found by anyone who's read the nomination for deletion, then it should be deleted. However, I can't imagine that this information isn't out there in one form or another from a reliable source. 3) On the talk page, I found this post by Dionyseus, in which he states, "The article looks rather empty and silly right now, perhaps it should be deleted" and "if the state of this article doesn't improve soon I will nominate it for deletion." Although I firmly believe Dionyseus has the best intentions, the reasoning behind this article's deletion is flawed for two reasons: a) It is based on some sort of "invisible timer" by which someone has to improve the article to avoid a deletion nomination and b) An article's "silliness" is cause for deletion, and although I certainly agree its current format is anything but helpful, I would argue that that's more of a cause for Wikification. Thus, I cannot support this nomination in its current state while the article remains salvagable. --Hemlock Martinis 07:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Whew.  I was really, really tempted to vote speedy keep on this because I am positive this is a bad faith nomination (if you have a lot of time and a strong stomach feel free to see the talk page of this article to see what I mean), but I think that the article as it exists must fail for lack of verifiabilty and therefore is against policy.  Now I have no problem with an article about best-selling games, but even after endless rounds of discussion, no one has come up with a good source for most of this material, while all attempts to remove the bad material and leave what is verifiable has failed and led to edit wars.  The fact of the matter is that video game sales data is jealously guarded by the NPD, and virtually the only time reliable data comes out is when a company wants to tout its own success (see this article for more background: .  At this point, the only solutions I can see are an RfC or deletion with protection against recreation.  Maybe not the best solutions, but it is time for this silliness to end. Indrian 06:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * We don't need just one source; Hell, I have a text document of the North American LTDs for many of the best-selling DS games. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * We can't use your data A Link to the Past, it is not verifiable. How do we know who sent you the text document, how do we know you did not modify the text document?  It's unverifiable.  Dionyseus 19:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Where and how are we going to get the sources? As TJ Spyke pointed out, the NPD Group is a private group, they don't release data publically.  Unless someone can demonstrate that the majority of entries can be verifiably sourced, then I believe this nomination was warranted.  The article is well over a year old and most of the article is unsourced.  Dionyseus 07:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice job avoiding the statement that shows that what TJ Spyke says is incorrect. Anyone who subscribes to NPD can get the numbers. I am able to see the NPD top 20 every single month - Hell, a subscriber to NPD has been releasing the top 50 monthly figures for the DS, GBA, GCN, PSP, PS2, and 360. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Where can we see that data? It must be verifiable, otherwise it's just original research.  Dionyseus 07:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * From whomever posts it on a web site. Anyone who pays NPD money gets the numbers. It's that simple. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Anyone can alter the numbers to their liking and post it on their website. The website must be trustworthy and verifiable, otherwise we can't use it.  Dionyseus 07:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So when someone was knowingly by you creating their own estimates, it was okay, but now you say that because the numbers may be modified, we must assume that they are? I highly doubt you care about them being as close to the real thing when you were in absolute support mode for VGCharts. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Either get a few verified sources or delete as OR. Grutness...wha?  07:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There's no way to salvage this article before the AfD ends. It takes work to find sources for hundreds of games. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ALTTP, it's not just a matter of money, NPD has to agree to provide it to you (the same way that can't just pay $2,000 to Nintendo and expect them to give you a Wii development kit). They have in the past stopped providing data to subscribers they have caught providing the data to the public (like on a messageboard). I like the list, but unless reliable and verifiable sources can be provided then I will have to vote Delete. Make sure to put this on a userpage though first. TJ Spyke 07:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * We do not need to give exact data. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have seen "NPD" mentioned many times here. Can someone explain what that is? Andrew Levine 08:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A company which exists to analyze 70% of the market, take those sales, and estimate what they think the remaining 30% sold. This system exists for the publishers, so that they can tell how well their games have performed (although anyone with the right amount of money can subscribe). - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Would it not be original research? How can we verify that the data user X is providing actually came from NPD, how can we verify that user X has not modified the data?  If a verifiable and trustworthy website like IGN or Gamespot were to post NPD data, that data can be used because it is verifiable, but I don't think we can use data that a user has bought.  Dionyseus 08:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * To add to the above, this is by far the most reliable source for sales of video games in North America and the primary source used by everyone from the media to the video game companies themselves. Some of this info trickles out at various times in various ways, but as NPD makes its profit by sharing this info with subscribers, they zealously guard their data from public consumption.  As a result, getting good sales figures for video games can be extremely difficult, though is certainly not impossible. Indrian 08:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This seems ridiculous. It's a good topic and it should be possible to thoroughly cite it, even if it takes a long time. Wikipedia is a work in progress. Everyking 09:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This article is over a year old and currently 99% of it is unsourced. No one has yet demonstrated how the article can be properly sourced.  Dionyseus 09:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. GarrettTalk 10:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep' As stated above, this article being a year old is no reason for a deletion. And it can be cited. Havok (T/C/e/c) 11:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No one has demonstrated how the article can be sourced. We can't use NPD data bought by a user, we can only use it if it appears in a verifiable website or magazine, and same can be said about Famitsu, etc.  Where are we going to find verifiable sources for a thousand games that have been released at various dates from the 80's to the present?  Dionyseus 19:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - All this looks like to me is a complete bad faith nomination. 193.123.254.98 12:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep, per Category:Best sellers. How about Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point? It is very simple: remove all unsourced statements. You have only 10 or 20 games left? Much better, people then would be forced to search for a source in order to add games. -- ReyBrujo 12:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Folks, please don't forget to assume good faith. It's not just a guideline, it's a policy. --Brad Beattie (talk) 12:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Check the history section of the article. While Dionyseus deleted unsourced statements, A Link to the Past added them back. When Dionyseus reached his second revert, to prevent breaking 3RR, he sent the article to deletion. It is obvious A Link to the Past and Dionyseus can't agree, but the article is the damaged one. -- ReyBrujo 13:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed. This sentence is taken from that very same Assume good faith policy: This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary.. I think the evidence does indeed lead me to a bad faith nomination conclusion. It seems petty, spiteful and disrupting Wikipedia to make a point (which also has a policy against it.) 193.123.254.98 14:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Very Strong Keep This is one article that I have personally found useful on a number of occasions, as I'm sure have others. The "original research" claims are ridiculous: WP:OR prohibits unpublished theories and self-conducted experiments and such.  For this to qualify as original research, perhaps the authors have secretly installed hidden cameras in every retail outlet in the world so they know who sold how many of what?  Far more likely, these are sourced either from gaming magazines or reports such as NPD group's annual overview of the video game industry.  I agree there should be more of a push to determine sources on these, but the article itself must be kept. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually if you bother to take a look at the article you will see that 99% of it is unsourced, this is unacceptable considering the article is more than a year old. Where do you get that they are sourced?  Where are the sources?  Dionyseus 19:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above comments JQF 15:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * keep the information is obviously verifiable and objective, and the concept of the list is quite encyclopedic. If it needs cleanup and sources, do so. AFD is not cleanup nor is it an avenue for dispute resolution. &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 16:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Bad faith nom, continuation of the VGCharts revert wars. --- RockMFR 18:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually I no longer believe VGCharts is useable in this article, and I only supported VGCharts because I believed a source is better than no source, but A Link to the Past has convinced me in the article's talk page that it can't be used because it is not verifiable. Dionyseus 19:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * From what I understand, the data is verifiable. But the source is not reliable. -- ReyBrujo 19:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * According to A Link in the Past and several others, VGCharts' data is unverifable because it uses shipped figures rather than sales.    Dionyseus 20:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * We do not judge the sources from the source, but the source itself. As an example, suppose blogger ZZZ says "YYY sucks". Now, we would not go to article YYY and add a controversy section stating that "ZZZ thinks YYY sucks" or "YYY sucks" and referencing such blogger, because the blogger is not reliable. However, if IGN or Gamespot have an article that reads "Initial response about YYY is negative, with even some bloggers like ZZZ stating it sucks", we would be add such information to the YYY article. ZZZ, the blogger, is still a unreliable source. However, IGN or Gamespot are considered reliable in terms of video games, and although the fact they quoted ZZZ does not make the blogger more reliable than before, at least we now can quote a reliable site with basically the same information from the blogger. VGCharts hasn't got the reputation from IGN, Gamespot or Gamasutra, thus it is not considered a reliable source and should not be quoted directly. However, if IGN posts VGCharts numbers, we would be able to quote IGN using VGCharts numbers, but not VGCharts directly. -- ReyBrujo 20:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I was unable to find any a week ago when you asked us to find a reliable source that has quoted VGCharts, and believe me I tried my darndest.   Dionyseus 20:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That is why I say it is a matter of notability and reliability instead of verifiability. -- ReyBrujo 21:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I really don't care whether or not it is a reliable source, nor whether the data is correct. I've seen far too many edit wars (and even wheel wars between admins) trying to add/remove sales figures to video game articles. This nomination is quite obviously a part of this ongoing war. --- RockMFR 23:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So in other words, your vote is not based on any wikipedia policy or any attempt to understand the situation and is just a knee-jerk reaction to an edit war. The only thing sillier than an AfD coming out of a stupid edit war is a vote based on that logic. Indrian 23:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per Andrew and many others. hateless 18:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I doubt anybody voting "keep" understands the issue or read the debate. That, and we're wasting our time with pointless blabber like "bad faith nom". There are no verfiable sources for game sales, as the NPD does not allow its data to be released publicly. It is impossible to actually verify this information. If an article can't meet WP:V, which is stone-set policy, it must be deleted. Interrobamf 20:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. I've always had a bit of trouble applying WP:V to an AfD debate.  There are some for which it's obvious - Bigfoot Exists! would be an example because the very subject of the article is not verifiable.  But List of best-selling computer and video games?  That seems much less clear - there are obviously such things as computer and video games.  They're sold.  Some sell better than others.  Some sell best...ergo, there are best-selling computer and video games, and it's possible to make a list with the proper information.  So it's only a question of what to include, how to cite it, and how to format it.  That's the proper dispute, and it's the dispute A Link to the Past and Dionysus were in before this was taken to AfD.  (I agree that the AfD was almost certainly done in bad faith.  Any AfD that follows three reverts is almost always going to be in bad faith.)  There's a good question of how to cite these things - but as the above discussion illustrates, there are ideas.  Someone has this data - as discussed above, it exists.  The question is how to access the proper data, apply it, cite it, etc.  That's not a verifiability dispute; that's a citation dispute.--TheOtherBob 21:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is that it is impossible to verify the information. NPD has the data but does not allow its data to be released publically.  As Interrobamf says, if the article can't meet WP:V it must be deleted.  Dionyseus 21:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand that to be your position, but I think it misapplies WP:V, as I stated above.--TheOtherBob 21:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Interrobamf: verifiability is not negotiable and no number of speedy or strong keeps will change that. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Because user:A Link to the Past likes to complain about everything and refuse to use the STATISTICALLY CORRECT VGCharts I believe the article should just be deleted. I'm tired of arguing about it. WhiteMinority 01:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * According to the talk page, the consensus was established that VGCharts is not appropriate for Wikipedia. If you're tired of arguing about it, I recommend walking away from the article and moving on to other pages. --Hemlock Martinis 01:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I second that and would also add that the above vote should be discounted as having nothing to do with policy considerations. Note that I voted delete as well so this is not based on disagreement with the vote, but rather on the immaturity of the vote caster. Indrian 02:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

What's the point of keeping an article with incomplete information. And it just looks ugly. WhiteMinority 03:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not about good looking, but instead, verifiable information. An "incomplete" article is considered a stub, and will be expanded with time. -- ReyBrujo 03:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. First of all, aggregating and ordering material from sources is not Original Research; it's not original research if your sources say "Game X was produced for console Z", "Game X sold W copies", and you order all games for console X by number of copies they sold. Original research implies conclusions and allegations not explained anywhere; it doesn't mean you can't put work in the article and organise it in a manner that makes it more useful for the reader. Secondly, this is a classic case of information for which verifiable sources can be found, and anyone who claims otherwise is obviously not thinking big enough. Seriously, now, what would deleting this article really prove? That we're utterly paranoid about everything, and can't even think of the possibility that there might be reliable lists that list this stuff? That we cannot let potentially badly sourced material live in article history? I'm not pointing you to a source for this stuff because I have no idea where to find the source myself, all I have is a gut feeling that someone just might have compiled such list, duh; all I'm saying is that it's ridiculous to delete the article if people haven't bothered to find that source yet. We're making a mockery out of how Wikipedia is supposed to work in a sane world. This nomination proves exactly what's wrong with the current delete-happiness based on "lack of sources". If I were in a worse mood (and in one of these I might), I might make this AfD the poster-boy. Please save your "no sources, ever" allegations to cases that deserve that stuff. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And please save your over-the-top rhetoric for an issue you have some understanding of. Unfortunately sales information is not available in a reliable way for most games.  For every game we have concrete sales figures there are many more which we do not.  As a result, the list fails to have meaning.  What information we have on game sales is better conveyed in individual articles and perhaps an article, as opposed to a list, on video game sales.  At present, this list can never hope to serve its purpose of identifying best-selling video games with any regularlity or accuracy, and it therefore fails to be verifiable, which is the big no-no of wikipedia.  While some may have dragged original research into this debate, that is not the policy that is actually impacted here.  This is not the movie or music industries, where this stuff is reported all the time.  This is also not an industry supported by much secondary scholarship, so I doubt anyone has already put together the big list you speak of.  Your vote is your vote, and I know I am not going to change it, but I hope I can point out how your little rant casts you in a somewhat poor light (though, to be fair, I have certainly enganged in worse rants from time to time myself ;) Indrian 18:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Your argument fails due to clear points of policy. WP:V: "Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor" and "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it". It is not the responsibility of those voting delete to provide sources. It is the responsibility of those who wish to keep this article, including you. Wikipedia isn't here to accumulate non-sourced information in the hopes that some kind individual will source them. That's a terrible way to go around it. Interrobamf 19:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Is it just me, or do almost all of the statistics now have sources? 71.252.107.172 01:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's because User:WhiteMinority deleted all unsourced entries. Originally the article was 99% unsourced: .  Dionyseus 02:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Seeing as the article is sourced now, and that the "99% (that was) unsourced" has been removed, your AfD is not needed anymore. And both you and A Link to the Past should take a timeout, there is no need for your obsessive argumentation anymore, you have both proven your points and are basically discussing and arguing over the same thing over and over again. Havok (T/C/e/c) 09:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: The user Dionyseus has been arguing that it is unacceptable for the article to be unsourced because it is over a year old, implying that it "should have had a source by now". However, this is twisting the facts. It may have existed for over a year, but it only just became unsourced recently (and ever-so conveniently, Dionyseus has only chosen to blank the page when VGCharts' data was removed). - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually the one who's twisting facts is A Link to the Past. VGCharts was used as a source only recently.  Take a look at the article back in September of this year when it was also 99% unsourced: .  Let's go further back to December of 2005 when it was 99% unsourced: .  Dionyseus 03:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I suppose December 5, 2005 isn't just recently... but I suppose December 10, 2005 is though? And I scoff at your claims that I am twisting anything. There were no VGCharts links in the September version because they had been removed by me! I hope you will stop making false claims. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What exactly are you showing with the December 10 link? As for your October link, the version I linked was about 30 days prior to your version.  On September 9 2006 User:WhiteMinority sourced most of the article with VGCharts, which of course now we know it cannot be used.   Dionyseus 05:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * One - Check the Everything and Nothing link.
 * Two - And on August 8, 2006, I complained about VGCharts' usage.
 * Three -  If VGCharts was only "recently added", with you trying to act as if WhiteMinority just added it, why would it be there before the edit you cite? - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What I meant was that the article wasn't heavily sourced by VGCharts until recently, I consider two months to be recent. Dionyseus 06:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * However, it can be assumed that the unsourced numbers were from EaN, just like the vast majority of the PS2 numbers were from there. The article had been progressively developed with sources and numbers since December 10, 2005. And they were just recently removed. You seem to imply that the article has been unsourced for an entire year. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. From what I can tell, this appears to be a content dispute.  As such, it qualifies as a bad-faith nomination, and AfD is NOT for resolving content disputes.  --Alan Au 07:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - Not only is nominating an article for AfD for lack of sources after having a content dispute about the sources that were there a bad faith nom, but lack of sources is not a valid reason for deletion. Please keep your arguements on the talk page, and out of AfD.  --PresN 19:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually my reason for nominating this article was for unverifiability, a valid reason to delete the article. However I have withdrawn my nomination because the hundreds of unsourced entries have been removed from the article, only sourced entries remain and I believe that's the way it should be.  Dionyseus 22:16, 21 November 2006 (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.