Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most expensive video games to develop

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. Wifione ^Message 08:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of most expensive video games to develop[edit]

(Find video game sources: "List of most expensive video games to develop" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

While potentially a good list subject, it's hurting for notability. The sources attached (and available) are extremely lacking, with the main refs citing unreliable, unsourced "estimates" instead of confirmed figures. I don't know if it's possible for this list to ever be definitive or encyclopedic with the available information and the nature of disclosing these figures. PROD was removed. czar · · 02:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) czar · · 02:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a worthwhile topic. However unless there is at least one official or even somewhat reliable source that tells us the costs of video game development this is really "List of most expensive video games to produce according to info discovered by WP editors." Even that is worth something, but I don't think we should put WP's stamp of approval on it as reliable information. (If there is such a source change my vote to keep.) -Borock (talk) 04:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to one source in one case the cost of developing a new game engine (which could be used for future games) was included in the cost of the game. Not Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. :-) -Borock (talk) 05:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a notable topic, as a Google search for "most expensive video game budgets" (without quotes) will show. There are plenty of sources out there for each individual figure, as well, and I've added a few at random to prove the point. Yes, these are estimates (and I notice this article tends to include only the highest estimates, but that can be fixed through editing), but they're estimates reprinted by reliable sources like the New York Times and the BBC. Most WP articles about video games mention the estimated development cost – this list is simply bringing all that information together. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Most WP articles about video games mention the estimated development cost – this list is simply bringing all that information together." I've found the opposite to be the case—most major vg articles don't mention even estimated dev costs because their methodologies for estimating are too shaky. What articles do you know that cite hard figures? czar · · 00:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Lists of video games. I think it fits in better with that article. epzik8 14:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of video games is a compilation of other WP list articles on video games. Each of the articles listed is itself is a list containing multiple entries. Nowhere does the article link to individual video games or define criteria under which specific video games are listed. So I'm afraid I don't see how that could be an appropriate merge target. --Mike Agricola (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As I stated on the article's talk page when I removed the PROD, the list of most expensive video game development budgets appears to have originated from a blog. However, the story was subsequently picked up by a few media outlets. If the media outlets themselves are to be regarded as WP:RS, the fact that they published such a list would definitely support the article's notability. Even if a story originates on a blog, it becomes reliable if it subsequently receives significant coverage in other media sources that are themselves reliable. In this instance, I'm not clear on how reliable these media sources are:

Ashcraft, Brian (February 25, 2010). "Report: The Ten Most Expensive Video Game Budgets Apparently Are..." Kotaku. Retrieved 2013-04-20.

Gaskill, Jake (February 25, 2010). "Top 10 Highest (Estimated) Game Budgets Of All Time". G4. Retrieved 2013-04-20.

Horvath, Stu (March 8, 2010). "Most expensive video games: Were they worth the money?". Daily News. Retrieved 2013-04-20.

Regarding Kotaku, WP:VG/RS states, "News posts after 2010 are considered reliable. For posts before 2010, only those (significant) opinion posts that are written by established writers are allowed." WP:VG/RS deems G4's "X-Play (US)" reliable, but I'm not certain if G4TV.com is related or not. And I don't know how reliable the tabloid-format Daily News (New York) is regarded. EDIT: I just discovered that The Game Fanatics and MSN Games also published lists of most expensive video game development budgets. I'm thinking that MSN Games would qualify as a WP:RS, but I'm not certain about The Game Fanatics. --Mike Agricola (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: After a bit more reflection, I'm going to cast a "Keep" vote. The MSN Games article to which I linked above and (probably) at least one or two others among the five sources I listed earlier qualify as reliable. These sources demonstrate that the construction of this type of list is an established, and notable, concept. Added to these sources are others which describe specific games as having one of the most expensive development budgets in the gaming industry (a few of which DoctorKubla already added to the article). Both types of sources permit a well-documented list to be constructed that involves no WP:OR and satisfies WP:GNG. --Mike Agricola (talk) 22:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sources themselves are reliable, as in they have a system of internal editorial oversight, but the estimated numbers tend to be of a wide, unreliable range instead of a single figure, from unknown industry insiders, and calculated with no common methodology (e.g., see the NYT articles). I'm not sure those numbers can be called encyclopedic. czar · · 00:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those are good concerns to address editorially. For example, a footnote accompanying the table could note that the provided figures are only estimates. If possible, multiple sources should be consulted for each game and budgetary ranges (e.g. 40-50 million) presented where discrepancies occur. Reliable media outlets often quote "unnamed sources", yet these news stories are still acceptable to cite so long as the outlet itself qualifies as a WP:RS. Because the topic appears to satisfy WP:GNG, it is my view that this challenge can be surmounted through appropriate editing. --Mike Agricola (talk) 01:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A couple clicks in the footnotes indicates that the cost of game production is indeed a subject covered in multiple, independently published sources. Does it need better sourcing? Yes. Are the numbers accurate? Quite likely. These are editing matters. As to the basic question of notability and encyclopedia-worthiness, this is clearly a keep, it seems to me. Carrite (talk) 03:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a bare-bones article in need of more content and sourcing, but the topic is definitely notable. I know that SWTOR in particular received a lot of coverage for being the most expensive video game ever developed, here for instance. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The current citations seem like a good start, so I think it satisfies WP:GNG. This is the type of information that I've gone hunting for in the past and I think it's a good topic for an encyclopedia. Praemonitus (talk) 04:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, not non-notable, just needs improvement/expansion. Ansh666 21:18, 24 April 2013 (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.