Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Budget range

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. Without a single source provided, arguments for inclusion are completely invalid. Therefore, this article is found to not meet any requisite criteria to be retained in this encyclopedia. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Budget range[edit]

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

I can see an article called Pricing and video games, but this very specific term doesn't seem to have much coverage in the literature. It comes across like a random list of company's discount lines. Coin945 (talk) 01:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clarkcj12 (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although I don't see the article that the nominator mentioned in nomination statement. I do agree as per nominated. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 06:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep - Not sure I saw where the article mentioned above is, I don't really have an issue with the article, per se, it does need referencing, and a style change. Budget video games (and video game series) seems to me to be a notable topic. Lee Vilenski(talk) 11:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Budget video game ranges are part of a wider concept of low price, discount or budget product ranges: value brand in groceries (that's a redirect to a section of generic brand), diffusion line in fashion, etc; there's also the article Value brands in the United Kingdom. At least one budget video game range has its own article: Essentials (PlayStation). I'm a little surprised that there doesn't seem to be a more general article this could be merged/redirected to - and Google isn't helpful looking for sources, although I'm sure business/trade press will cover it to some extent. I'd certainly suggest a better search for sources and considering how to save, merge, or redirect. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Second and final relist. Consensus needed to determine if article should be considered a poorly-sourced list article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 09:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to List of budget video game labels. While the article in this state is a glorified dicdef, it makes sense as a list._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Despite my delete !vote, below, I would have no objection to turning this into a list. Eliminate all the unsourced WP:OR at the beginning and just leave the list of game titles. I'm not sure that would satisfy WP:NLIST, but at least it would eliminate the WP:OR problems of the introductory material. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced = fails WP:V = mandatory deletion. Sandstein 21:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect I'm unsure about the validity of the comment directly above, since WP:NOREFS states that an article lacking references is not sufficient ground for deletion - it must be proven that there exists no such reference (a noticeably harder task than simply pointing at a policy). That means that lack of source does not imply mandatory deletion. It does make it harder to judge so. However, the parent subject (video games) certainly is notable and I think it would be more logical to merge this with it than to keep it separate, especially as notability seems to be hard to establish individually, and keeping with precedent for other similar sub-topics, as pointed out by Colapeninsula. The other delete comment is clearly WP:PERNOM and the nominator's statement can also be interpreted as being open to a merge with a larger article ("I can see an article called Pricing and video games") but since that article does not exist yet, most logical would be to merge with the next most appropriate article, which could one of the suggestions of the below comment. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 15:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to a new section Video game#Value pricing, in the classifications section. Activision had a group called Value Publishing that merged with Head Games and is now defunct, but they never called the category budget range. This is a dictionary term, but the idea of cheaper games does exist. Not enough for a stand alone article. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 05:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, as per timtempleton. It's interesting that these products are often released under a label that's a subset of a larger, more well-known company, with a markedly different intended audience. The section should have a hatnote to List of budget video game labels, new article that Zxcvbnm suggests. = paul2520 (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced WP:OR. I wouldn't be opposed to keeping this if there was sourcing (and given a better name, such as Pricing and video games suggested in the nom), but as it stands, there's so many statements that fail WP:V, I don't see how keeping it makes any sense. I've marked up the article where citations are needed. The result is an ugly citation-needed-bomb-run, but that's because we really do need sources for all these statements. Merging this into some other article doesn't eliminate the need for sources; merging solves WP:N, the problem we have here is WP:V. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or, possibly listify (see my comments above in response to ZXCVBNM). -- RoySmith (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2018 (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.