Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of free Epic Games Store 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 delete. The delete arguments are not only numerically superior, but also cite good policy-based reasons for deletion. The keep arguments, both from users with relatively limited editing experience, make no such policy-based arguments. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

List of free Epic Games Store games

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:NOT. Because these are free for a limited time, it really doesn't help anyone after the fact. Other storefronts offer free games on a routine basis, and we don't track those. M asem (t) 16:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. M asem  (t) 16:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:CATALOGUE. We’re an encyclopedia, not a sales-catalogue for an online storefront. Sergecross73   msg me  16:31, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete CATALOG has been dropped already, but WP:NOTPROMO also applies nicely to this, and Epic can do its own promotion just fine without us.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 17:55, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NOTCATALOGUE and WP:NOTPROMO. No encyclopedic merit to this list whatsoever. Ajf773 (talk) 19:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per others. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:OTHER Masem You are correct other storefronts offer free games on a routine basis, but you are wrong that Wikipedia doesn't track those. See List of Games with Gold games, which has been updated consistently for over six years, for one example. The value is not what to see is currently available - that is what the news covers, - but rather to understand what happened in the past. Firms don't generally relist items under the same promotion so it aids in understanding future company decision-making. WP:NOTE Sergecross73 It is not a sales catalog. It mere lists those items that are free because that has received significant coverage in reliable sources as Epic attempts to battle the dominate market player, Steam. WP:COMPREHENSIVE Nate Wikipedia's purpose is to be be a fully comprehensive and informative reference work, which includes company specific activities. It is no more 'Epic promotion' than List of Games with Gold games is 'Microsoft promotion'. WP:VERIFY Everything on the page is cited. WP:OTHER Ajf773 'No encyclopedic merit to this list' implies a) that the sources are unreliable and b) that many pages should be deleted including the following ten pages as they are lists too: List of wikis, List of Jewish American businesspeople, List of serial killers by country, List of environmental journals, List of airlines of Chad, List of alcoholic drinks, List of poets, List of Nintendo DS games, List of Pakistani sweets and desserts, and List of fictional frogs and toads. n64ra (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This article has been singled out because it is a list of free games, a sub-category of a list of games from the game producer. It mostly certainly fails WP:NOTCATALOGUE because it specifically details pricing. Ajf773 (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. You have not explained how the article this is based on, List of Games with Gold games, has survived for over six years without deletion - doing the same work. n64ra (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * None of that rambling monologue actually counters the idea of it being a sales catalogue. I’m not sure you’re understanding WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Sergecross73   msg me  02:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I addressed the five arguments (historical value for future business decision making, already track similar ideas on wikipedia, significant press coverage, credible sources referencing every component, and several "lists of" exist on wikipedia) for deletion. You have only pointed out one (catalog) and readdressed it. n64ra (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Your statement didn’t counter my point. There being sources, and it being a sales catalogue, not not mutually exclusive. Sergecross73   msg me  03:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTCATALOG and the article is rather pointless as many are very temporary.  Nixinova   T   C  04:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. While it may be pointless to you, such lists are quite valuable to others. I take 'many are very temporary' to mean the amount of time an item is eligible. Does anyone need to know that Sacred Citadel was free from February 1, 2016 to February 15, 2016, as per List of Games with Gold games? That question doesn't matter. What matters is that it is a fact and worth documenting. WP:NOTE n64ra (talk) 15:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We don't keep stuff because it's useful. There are many game wikis and other fan-run sites that track this, and the purpose otherwise fails WP's core policies. We have documented this free game program by Epic Games (and similar ones on the other services), as that's a notable feature, but we aren't required to document all instances of it. --M asem (t) 15:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We aren't required to document all instances of it, but some people do want that information documented. -digimarks (t) 19:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was useful. I said it was worth documenting. Encyclopedias give information on many subjects, and this is another subject. Can you point me to the many game wikis and other fan-run sites that track this sort of thing? I searched for a complete list of the 644 free games Sony has given away in North America in their similar program over the course of this decade. The two comprehensive results are Wikipedia and Reddit. Wikipedia's is much cleaner, readable, and more detailed. That would be a shame to lose! You still haven't addressed what criteria exists to allow some like List of Games with Gold games but not others like this. n64ra (talk) 14:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * We don't argue WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because there's the list of Games with Gold, doesn't mean it is appropriate, and I am considering its deletion if this AFD closes delete for similar reasons. But I'm not starting that until it is clear what consensus is. --M asem (t) 14:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:OTHER I see this list as more about factual information than promotional anything. I understand that there's a good deal of possibly/probably well-earned animosity for Epic Games and their practices, but as a gamer who sometimes seeks out gaming history, I've searched for lists like these to know what the lineage was and if a game I'd like to get from their catalogue was already offered. Since Epic themselves don't list their offer history on their website (as far as I know), we have to seek this info elsewhere. Under the "When to not use deletion process?" section of Introduction_to_deletion_process, it says "since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, articles that interest some people should be kept", which addresses the audience intended for this info, as well as "Wikipedia contains information on all topics, not just those which any person or group agrees with", which addresses the personal (and possibly entirely valid) umbrage that may be a source for some of the disagreement on this article segment's existence. Other services do offer free games, as has been mentioned, but the linear timeline factor of these temporarily available games gives it a point of being trackable, not unlike the List of Games with Gold games, as mentioned by n64ra. WP:DIRECTORY also clearly states "there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic". -digimarks (t) 19:17, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't the place to go to find out what games are free. It's not a game guide nor a catalogue. That information should be available directly from the distributors. Ajf773 (talk) 00:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Expect the distributors don't maintain a database of the games given away in such programs. One has to search through old tweets and blog posts to compile an inclusive list. n64ra (talk) 14:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You're not citing OTHER correctly here at all, and the rest of your argument, along with n64ra, is just WP:ITSUSEFUL arguments. If you could just yell that out and have that work every time, nothing would ever get deleted. It doesn’t work like that... Sergecross73   msg me  03:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We have provided more than just WP:ITSUSEFUL. 14:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with it being factual. Here's my personal story of why I am passionate about lists like these. A few years ago my PS3 broke so I bought a replacement, which meant I had to redownload everything on to the new PS3. I like to separate games I pay for versus those that are free. Sony / Playstation provided no such comprehensive list. Looking at individual items on the PSN Store only provides the info 'purchased' for either category. Not helpful, but you know did help? A clean list, which was found on Wikipedia. Take a look at my history, and you'll see I provided most of the updates to List of Instant Game Collection games (North America) since January 2018. That's how give back to the community that helped me. I expect something similar to happen on Epic Games Store. Say I get a new PC in four years, then I'll be interested in separating those I paid for from those that Epic game away for free. A clean list like the one currently on Wikipedia would come in most handy. This hits WP:OTHER, WP:COMPREHENSIVE, WP:NOTE, and "When to not use deletion process?" section of Introduction_to_deletion_process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N64ra (talk • contribs)
 * Thats just another WP:ITSUSEFUL argument. It’s a nice story, but it has no bearing on whether it should be deleted or kept. Your valiant efforts can still be continued on a fan wikia or Gamefaqs or Neogaf/ResetEra/social media. But it’s not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Sergecross73   msg me  14:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Delete This page is a standalone list WP:SAL. It is clearly not a catalog WP:NOTCATALOG. Looking through the list of examples there, and the discussion here, the only delete argument seems to be that this is a sales catalog.  But, if we look, this page doesn't include pricing information, nor availability.  (At least nothing past it being a chronological list of items, filtered by the notable free ones).  Whether or not this is a good chronological list, as per WP:SALAT, seems to be the only meaningful discussion we can have here.  The two common issues that page discusses are "too broad" and "too narrow".  We all certainly agree this list isn't too broad.  With the number of entries it has already, it doesn't appear to be too narrow either.  So, we have to see if this topic is notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia article.  I'm not experienced enough with editing Wikipedia to make a good argument on that topic, but it seems fairly clear that it's the only discussion worth having.  If someone has experience arguing the notability requirement of WP:SALAT or knows where we could find past discussions to reference here, please chime in!  I see this page passes WP:GNG but surely there's more to the discussion than that.  WP:NOTESAL unfortunately doesn't give much help. Masem when this and similar discussions finish up, it might be worth expanding that guideline. 3fishes (talk) 22:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC) Edit: Due to the discovery of Articles for deletion/List of Humble Bundles (2nd nomination) I change my stance to support Delete, on the basis that it stays consistent with existing consensus.  Specifically, that it should be deemed WP:NOTCATALOG (though I still do not agree that it's a sales catalog), and that the notability of it is insufficient to supersede its catalog-ness.  This list should be preserved and maintained somewhere else. 3fishes (talk) 13:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well "free" sorta indicates the price, and the availability is there of when the game was free on the website. I would argue that yes, there is a GNG argument here - nearly every time this has switched over the major game sites have talked about it, but the key to keep in mind is that this is effective just when certain promotions were held. The main Epic Games Store page notes it runs this promotion and that's really all WP should say about it per NOT#CATALOG (which overrides the GNG). --M asem (t) 22:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe the key difference here is that a directory/catalog is always kept current. I completely agree that a page, or even a section of a page, with "This is the current free Epic Game" would clearly violate NOTCATALOG.  This page, on the other hand, is a historical record.  A catalog holds the availability and price of a product so that you can buy it.  Availability and price are secondary to the real purpose of the catalog.  On this page though, "free" and "in the past" are the key and primary features.  I would maintain that all catalogs have price and availability, but not all lists with price and availability are necessarily catalogs.  A catalog requires something more. 3fishes (talk) 23:01, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * the key to keep in mind is that this is effective just when certain promotions were held. I definitely need to look deeper into the correct usage of WP:NTEMP. 3fishes (talk) 23:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * To reiterate - Say when, random game from the list, like "The Witness", was offered. (The game itself is notable on its own, not a question). I can do a google news search of "the witness" "epic games store" "free" and limit it to the month of April and I get 40+ hits, with at least 10 of those being WP:VG/S compliant reliable sources. So one could argue that the promotion was notable itself, but... the point of NOT#CATALOG is that we're not here to deal with promotions, unless something notable fell out of that promotion. At one point, we had a list of the various Humble Bundles but that was deleted (Articles for deletion/List of Humble Bundles (2nd nomination)) because while the first few bundles had impressively charitable results, most of the bundles in the last several years have not really had that, so the list was deleted, and mention of some of the more significant bundles made back in Humble Bundle. So I also submit that decision as a reason here.
 * At the end of the day, Epic Games Store is just a store front. The games it offers are notable, the storefront is notable, but the individual promotions are not. Just as we don't track every Steam sale or free game offering. It is just outside the purpose of an encyclopedia. --M asem (t) 23:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The humble bundle decision is a great find. I've edited my initial comment, changing my stance. 3fishes (talk) 13:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The article indicates when games are free. In every instance, free is a decrease in price. A decrease in price is called a sale. A collection and compilation of sales is what sales catalogues document. Therefore, the list acts as a sales catalogue. Where is the disconnect here? It’s all very straightforward. Sergecross73   msg me  00:47, 3 August 2019 (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.