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. Arguments to draftify do not give a convincing explanation how the article could be improved given the lack of quality sources. — The Earwig ^talk 01:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of highest-grossing video game franchises[edit]

List of highest-grossing video game franchises (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unlike List of best-selling video game franchises where there is a combination of minimal WP:SYNTH (within the bounds of CALC) based on reliable sourcing for the number of units within each franchise sold, this list is using far less reliable sourcing and far more SYNTH that is comfortable for such a compilation. There are some "firm" numbers from good RSes, such as for "Dungeon Fighter Online" but eliminating the franchises with poorly sourced numbers is not an option in terms of this list - eg the Super Mario entry is one of those that is suspect, and it clearly would be listed on here but we simply dn't have good sourcing for the total dollar amount the series has sold. There is no practical way for this list to exist based on sourcing. Masem (t) 06:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Masem (t) 06:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify, this is a topic which is almost certainly notable, and sourcing can probably be dug up, but the currently the article is in a horrid state, with most of the numbers being completely made up. The solution is pretty simple, just draftify the article until it no longer is comprised almost entirely of false information. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that I very much doubt we will be able to ever verify these details. The VG market is very tight on financials compared to the film industry, as a reference, and while units sold get reported frequently, the financial return on that is rarely reported. Until such a point where the VG market matures to where reporting these financials is more the norm than the exception, this type of article is basically impractical to fill out reliably to WP's standards. --Masem (t) 14:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify (or delete as a second option - just keep it from the main article space until it's been reworked). The topic is definitely notable, but the article in its current state spreads potential misinformation.--Alexandra^IDV 08:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify: clearly needs work, but it's an important subject to cover. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 09:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify subject is very important but needs work. Also requesting comment from Maestro2016.Timur9008 (talk) 11:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify Can't leave the article as is. killer bee  13:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Going to be the odd editor out, and if it "dings" my AFD stats so be it. This is a two year old article, I cannot see the purpose in Draftifying it. What is the goal? To provide "more time" to clean it up? Then just vote "keep, but needs cleanup". While AFD is not cleanup, the basic premise of the nomination is that the sourcing to create and maintain this list in a remotely complete form doesn't exist. And if that sourcing, to meet WP:V, does not exist, then it suggests appropriate sourcing to truly demonstrate WP:GNG and WP:LISTN similarly is missing. Even stepping back and going, "The data is bad, but clearly "highest grossing" is something sources talk about!" (to meet LISTN), I'd still vote Delete, and call it IAR and/or TNT on the grounds that we cannot adequately source and complete the list, with gaping holes for massive industry-critical franchises that clearly belong but the data is not published. It's had 2 years. Another 6 months in draft until it gets G13'd, or until random passing by editors move it back to article space, isn't going to solve anything. For that matter, what would be the criteria for it to be promoted back to article space? -- ferret (talk) 14:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per ferret. Draftification is appropriate for new articles. This article is not new. --Izno (talk) 14:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per argument of Masem. The video game industry is too secretive for such a list to be complete._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to fundamental issues with verifiability that cannot be resolved, as there are no reliable sources that would resolve them. Also fails WP:OR because some (many?) of the numbers are derived from calculations done by editors, based on already doubtful sources. Clean-up is not an option because removing the problematic numbers would make the holes in this list all the more obvious, and those holes cannot be fixed given that sources do not WP:NEXIST. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify The article needs improvement, not deletion. Tessaracter (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you perhaps address the nom and concerns that improvement is, simply, impossible? -- ferret (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This entire concept is simply unsalvageable because there is no comprehensive and transparent global revenue tracking in the video game industry like there is in other entertainment media like motion pictures. Every so often, a company will issue a press release saying so and so franchise has earned X number of dollars, but that is all you ever get, and even then there is no guarantee they are not juking the stats for their own gain by using strange definitions of what constitutes "revenue" or a "franchise." Even if we take those rare reliable sources at face value, however, we will be left with a list that is so full of omissions it cannot come close to satisfying the claim of the article title that it represents the highest grossing franchises. If someone really, really wants to put this in their own sandbox and play with it, I will not stop them, but there is no way to ever bring this article up to snuff for the mainspace. Indrian (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify. For reasons mentioned above. The article certainly needs cleanup though. Maestro2016 (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • One possible solution to some of the issues raised is to limit the scope of the article to modern and/or online games. There is an abundance of gross revenue data available for modern and/or online games, but not as much for older and/or retail games. Another possible solution would be to rename the article to "List of video game franchises by gross revenue". That way, there is no claim that these are the "highest-grossing" franchises, but only the game franchises for which gross revenue data is known. Maestro2016 (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC) Maestro2016 (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • So... List of highest-grossing video game franchises released after 2000 or online....? Renaming the list to be "by gross revenue" still contains a subtle context that entries at the top are the "highest grossing". And even then, a quick spot check just now found 3 cases of unreliable sourcing, incorrect OR figures, etc. -- ferret (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or alternatively, List of high-grossing video game franchises or List of billion-dollar video game franchises. We could also not have it in numerical order, but instead list it in alphabetic or release order. Maestro2016 (talk) 21:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • A list of franchises that are confirmed via a single source to be >$1b may be fair but I'd like to see that that is a notable distinction in the sources. I know in the mobile games area this is a metric, but not for premium/retail games, routinely. --Masem (t) 22:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • And yet would also remain woefully incomplete, as many of the most important highest grossing franchises you'd expect to see on "highest-grossing" would also be expected on "grossing >$1b", and similarly be unsourcable. -- ferret (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's why I was suggesting to limit the scope to online (or digital/arcade) games, where gross revenue is the standard metric, in contrast to console/PC retail games where unit sales is the standard metric. Maestro2016 (talk) 03:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per Indrian's excellent take. It's simply not possible to write an accurate article based on this concept. The video game industry uses number of copies sold to measure success, not financials. Most publishers don't even report these figures. The article is doomed to be incomplete and misleading, draftifying does not solve anything. List of best-selling video game franchises is based on copies sold, and does a better job at addressing this topic. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 04:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Article is OR SYNTH and I do not see how an article about this could be made without OR SYNTH per Indrian above.  // Timothy :: t | c | a   05:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per TarkusAB's comments. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Tarkus and Indrian. It's simply impossible to have a 100% accurate article for something like this. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 22:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:TNT is a policy that applies here. Starting from scratch would be better than keeping an article that is severely flawed. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 00:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me stress that there is a funamental issue with the video game industry around the reporting of individual titles' revenue (outside of the mobile side) that makes any attempt at a list like this flawed from a sourcing perspective. If there is a significant change in the industry to be more open - like the film industry - then maybe we can consider this, but this is almost a case of delete, salt and protect the salt to prevent recreation until such a time we can assure that we'll have accurate sourcing from the industry. --Masem (t) 22:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • If accurate sourcing does become available one day, how would one hypothetically propose that the subject topic be "unsalted" to recreate the topic as per your suggestion? Haleth (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Likely by seeking adminstrative help alongside proof that the sourcing is now there to support it. --Masem (t) 14:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. The article's accuracy issues is insurmountable per the arguments made by other editors in this discussion. Haleth (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an original research magnet. Per Masem and Indrian, the sourcing issues are insurmountable and no one has named a forthcoming reason or cache of sources that would make draftification productive. czar 05:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article is almost impossible to be without WP:SYNTH. MurasakiLizard (talk) 10:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per ferret, Indrian, and TarkusAB. Also, while some lists may never satisfy standards of completeness, one that then perpetuates something may be more or less successful by comparison than it actually is because numbers don't exist for other items on the list is dangerously WP:UNDUE and risks WP:NPOV issues. Red Phoenix ^talk 14:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Indrian. Video game industry does not have sufficient reliable sourcing for this except for some (unverifiable) claims by publishers/developers. The few that we have is not enough to make an article that doesn't have major omissions and isn't built around SYNTHy conclusions. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify. This article certainly can be certainly save, if we worked at it and improve it I can see it working Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 15:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The page can't exist without either a massive amount of WP:SYNTH or a massive amount of omissions. Additionally, since video game companies do not usually report revenue openly, most available sources for revenue figures are dubious. Phediuk (talk) 11:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As others have said, there are simply too many issues with trying to reliably source this information given the current state of the industry. That may change some day, but we're clearly not there yet. And, even if/when that day comes, the current page is not going to be helpful enough to warrant keeping it around given the amount of original research and speculation that seems be happening with it right now. DocFreeman24 (talk) 03:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Tarkus and Indrian. Article has deep issues with WP:V and WP:OR since reliable sources do not exist. Jontesta (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.