Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of video game crowdfunding projects

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. Consensus is to keep. Suggestions within the discussion could be used to tighten up inclusion criteria to deal with some of the issues. Michig (talk) 07:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of video game crowdfunding projects[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

An WP:INDISCRIMINATE list with an overly large scope. Crowdfunding is no longer a curiosity but an integral part of entertainment. The amount of crowdfunded video games in the past and future is likely to be an incredibly large amount, rendering the list a constant and taxing work in progress. Category:Crowdfunded video games works fine to categorize the games that are actually notable. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but trim down. I think I may have started it or being an early editor on this, but I know I was concerned for items that were only listed against their KS or other crowd-sourced page, as to have at least some type of discrimination. I would re-enforce that stance (requiring RS third-party sources), as well as setting at least some minimum funding level ($10k? $50k? $100k?) or has a clearly notable article (eg Undertale). Importantly, it helps establish a history of the the crowd-funded mechanism as the sizes grew following Broken Age, moreso than what a category can do. --Masem (t) 05:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One problem with that is that the minimum funding level says nothing about the quality of the game. Mighty No. 9 had a $4 million budget and was widely panned, Hollow Knight had a $50k budget and is often cited as one of the best games of all time. There is no functional reason to sort games by their Kickstarter budget, like movies would be listed by their box-office returns, because a budget means little about the relative quality and popularity of the finished product.

Requiring third-party RS is just not enough to make the article any less indiscriminate. And requiring the entry to have a Wikipedia article, is something that would likely be quickly forgotten about by new editors contributing to it._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about quality, it is about notable crowd sourced games where the crowd sourcing has been the subject of some discussion. So this will cover games that turned out bad like M#9, as well as those that became critical darlings despite tiny crowdfunding requests. That's why I say that the inclusion guidelines should be based on a combination of third-party sourcing that identifies the crowd sourcing effort and/or a minimum budget and/or a notable standalone article on the title. We'd need to refine that a bit more but there's a way to discriminate well based on those three points. And if new users add something that doesn't fit, it can be removed. (And not to evoke OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, we have List of highest-grossing films, irrespective of the quality of the final work.) --Masem (t) 13:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is fairly indiscriminate, Wikipedia is not a database of anything that has appeared on Kickstarter or Indiegogo. This is hardly a defining characteristic, especially when this includes not only games but music and Youtube projects. Reywas92^Talk 15:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but impose much more strict inclusion criteria, such every entry requiring its own article. It’s a notable subject, and criteria would trim it way down, eliminating the INDISCRIMINATE issue. Sergecross73 msg me 16:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Only include things with their own article. Dream Focus 17:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's notable as long as the games in question have their own article. Phediuk (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, initially i thought why should there be an article listing crowdfunded video games as crowdfunding is used to finance numerous projects/things but having read Crowdfunding in video games, agree that this is useful in showing the impact of this funding source on this industry, that said, also agree with above "keepers" that the list needs to be tightened to only include notables. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:18, 6 August 2019 (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.