Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Humble Bundles

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 no consensus. Nakon 03:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Humble Bundles

List of Humble Bundles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per

WP:NOTEVERYTHING, Wikipedia is not intended to be exhaustive. This list seems to have the goal though. This information is already reasonable covered by the parent article. The parent article may not list what the weekly bundle for Jan 1st, 2014 was, but that doesn't really seem all to important. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (But not prejudiced against deletion) At the talk page of the Humble Bundle, we have a slow discussion about the approach for these two pages now given how frequently the bundles are compared to when they first started (when it was only one every few months), and we recognize this is verving on DISCRIMINATE. These aren't as regularly covered in the sources as they used to. But we haven't moved on how to deal with reorganizing yet. I'd prefer to keep this page here for now (at worse, I'd ask for userification) as we figure out how to trim up things to reflect the nature of the Humble Bundle today. --MASEM (t) 17:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to you userifying this. But as it stands right now this is completely unnecessary. You have 11 of the 12 main bundles, almost every owner named bundle, most of the android bundles, and others. The discussion looks to have ended more than a year ago. Anywho, the information is in the article.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason to userify if deletion is opted is to merge any trailing information into the article or use it to build out categories. If we know what we know now on the HB approach, I'd likely not have created this list. --MASEM (t) 23:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There was a template at one point before this, if I recall correctly, that contained all of the bundles. It seems to be gone. The information in the article is mostly if not completely in the article. There's nothing really in the list to justify keeping it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This page contains significantly more information than the article, such as the price and how popular each was, and organizes it in a more readable format. I have personally used this page multiple times in the past. It most certainly is not unnecessary or redundant. I see your point that it is a lot of information, perhaps close to the point of too much, but I do not think that it has reached that point yet. If it did I would rather some information be pared down than deleted outright. Mamyles (talk) 18:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 10:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you remove the games (which are all in the article) you are left with numbers(that are in the article). While it serves a distinct purpose, the question is if it actually serves an encyclopedic purpose. It has trivia, trivia that is mostly in the main article.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If the list of bundles would be due to include at the main article, it's an appropriate stand-alone article. I would say this passage from
    WP:EMBED applies: Lists of works of individuals or groups, such as bibliographies, discographies, filmographies, album personnel and track listings, as well as timelines or chronologies, are typically presented in simple list format, though it is expected that the information will be supported elsewhere in the article by prose analysis of the main points, and that if the lists become unwieldy, they are split off into stand-alone lists per WP:Summary style.. And I would argue the list is due to include as part of the identity/notability of Humble Bundle in general (each of the lists attracts a decent amount of coverage individually, though certainly not enough to merit stand-alone articles). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • That's clearly not a very good analogy. Steam sales are not the set of events that comprise the entirety of the subject. Steam sales are not the products themselves, these are. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A significant difference here is that, compared to say the lists of hip hop artists, or the like, these sales only happened for a limited time, and thus no longer possible to even buy them. So we should be looking at the long-term effect. And this is where things get tricky. The first several Main bundles (the numbered ones) had high visibility, bringing additional attention to the games included, adding in the strong charity efforts and developers producing DRM-free versions on all three major platforms. Clearly that influence can be documented. But once they began running bundles on a semi-regular schedule, the attention dropped, and while they were still making charity efforts and other factors, the impact on the individual games included no longer because a major factor. As such, the bundles today are basically like a storefront, like steam. But that's why I've argued that to keep is to figure out where to draw the line as to what are bundles that really did have attention, and thus that have become routine. --MASEM (t) 05:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest that the earlier bundles have no notability their self and actually paint the (for lack of a better term) entity behind them as notable. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't suggesting that the individual early bundles had their own notability for a standalone (IIRC, we didn't create this article until #3 was out, but going off memory here). However, the amount of coverage of the early numbered bundles was huge, and the games included received additional attention from it. There were near-daily articles about reaching $x million marks, unlocking of source code, etc. Today, even considering just the main bi-weekly bundle, you might find it mentioned in passing in game deals, or sometimes called out but nowhere close to what the initial bundles got. --MASEM (t) 14:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just as a note is that when the Humble Bundle started when they weren't regular things, the individual bundles did receive attention, itself changing the model of how HB worked. But that was the case for only the "main" bundles, and most of the rest are truly not notable. Hence I think there's a subset to be kept, but definitely not the whole list. --MASEM (t) 21:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThe Humble Bundle is extremely notable, being huge successful as a tool of selling games and raising a lot of money for charity. Therefore it makes sense to keep a list of the game deals for future reference, as it has had such a huge influence on the industry. It is well maintained and comprehensive. Also the
    WP:NOTEVERYTHING deletion argument is weak as it is in no way indiscriminate. The various bundles are still referenced in forums that I visit, so have long lasting appeal amongst PC gamers. --Mrjulesd (talk) 13:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Extreme notability? So I guess the Valve corporation would be Uber mega extremely notable. While the case that the [[Humble Bundle], the "tool", is notable has been made, no one denies this. I'd probably just call it notable and not extremely notable. The list is completely indiscriminate, the very definition of the word. Every humble weekly bundle from the start til the week of December 18, 2014. Every Pop up humble bundle until february of this year. Most Humble Flash bundles til when ever. We are just missing the humble ebook bundles I think. Beyond the fact that this is an indiscriminate list it reproduces information already in the parent article. The list serves no actual purpose.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I couldn't agree much more, and I think it's a shame that consensus is clearly going to ignore common sense and the size of the page, and will result in the page being kept. Most Bundles are completely non-notable, with nothing bar routine coverage cropping up. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You wrote "The list is completely indiscriminate" well I stopped there, if you can't see how this list is not indiscriminate I give up really. --Mrjulesd (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that the list is verving that way, which is why while I'd like it kept, even then it needs a lot of pruning. Because HB is running weekly and biweekly bundles, even though there are charitable efforts on each time, its effectively a catalog, like documenting what was each big-box store was selling in their sunday ads. To that degree, there is a failure of
    WP:NOT#CATALOG here, and why either that if this list is kept it needs trimming, or that if it is not kept, it is trimmed to summarize the major, less frequent bundles that made it influential in the past. --MASEM (t
    )
  • It's not necessarily a size issue, but an issue that the list presently contains both some discriminate information and some indiscriminate information, with the latter starting to outweigh it, and indiscriminate information can lead to size issues. I believe that the list should be kept with trimming of the indiscriminate information to fix it, but I'd also accept deletion w/ userification or merging of the discriminate information into the main Humble Artist (itself needing a rewrite knowing what we know now). So discussion of deletion is completely fair here, and there are definitely valid reasons to delete. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you're effectively voting merge? Well I think that's a poor solution given each articles length. If you're voting delete you're saying the whole should be deleted, not that elements should be merged. And I still don't understand how any of it is indiscriminate, it's all highly specific. --Mrjulesd (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I voted to keep with the understanding massive trimming is needed, but would support a merge to incorporate only the discriminate material. And the reason it is indiscriminate is that, taking any random bundle they offer today (in 2015), it's just a specialized form of sale with a charity aspect. It is nowhere close to the level of community aggressiveness we had when the first 5 or 6 bundles came online. This is just listing out sales, which is a failure of
    WP:NOT#CATALOG making it indiscriminate. A way to measure this indiscriminateness is to look for sourcing for a given single bundle, and you'll find much less about them today than those first offered. If we're the only ones assembling this, that's likely a problem. --MASEM (t) 18:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • It's not precise, carefully and exactly constructed. It's a messy, exhaustive, incomplete, almost entirely unsourced
    directory. Many bundles aren't listed and pricing information is missing for a bunch that are listed (189 N/A where prices and purchases should be). The several IP editors that had the dedication to keep updating it gave up a long time ago. As Humble continues to expand this list becomes less maintainable and less useful. In it's current format this article has no chance to succeed. If it isn't deleted or significantly reworked this time around then it will inevitably be nominated again. --The1337gamer (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment Well I disagree in almost every way. Overall I'm impressed by it. There is considerable preciseness, verging on the extreme. And it is carefully and exactly constructed, I really don't understand how this could be improved. Maybe it is incomplete, but that is difficult for me to verify: but it is probably the most complete list on the web. As for messy: I consider it extremely well organized. As for the details: I really don't think it would benefit from additional details as you describe, that would detract from readability. It is also not a directory, please look at a dictionary definition to understand this. You don't think it will succeed: well so far most of the !votes have been to keep. It's also an extremely popular page, with 36,770 views in the last 90 days, which should count for at least something. Isn't that succeeding? It is for the benefit of readers after all. --Mrjulesd (talk) 20:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Preciseness is a problem. We're here to summarize , not go into excessive detail; that's one way something can be indiscriminate. And while what is indiscriminate is in the eye of the beholder, we have to consider that the average reader is not a video game player, and that the bulk of the information in this table is useless to them. If we limited it to the main numbered bundles - the ones that have raised the most for charity, the data there helps to explain why the HB system was important. But taking any random bundle out recently, not as much. (also be aware that page view counts mean nothing, as outlined at
      WP:ATA.) --MASEM (t) 20:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • I didn't say there was too little detail. I said it was both incomplete and exhaustive. Incomplete does not mean it is lacking detail, it's a different problem entirely. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You said "...and pricing information is missing for a bunch that are listed (189 N/A where prices and purchases should be)" i.e. it is missing pricing information, which is an additional detail. And incomplete is the opposite of exhaustive. --Mrjulesd (talk) 21:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're misunderstanding me. By exhaustive I mean that this article is trying to cover all Humble Bundles (which it should not be doing). By incomplete I mean that information is missing. Two different problems. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or another way to put it, we go into far too great detail on the bundles themselves, but we're also missing large swathes of bundles to be listed. --MASEM (t) 21:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I contend that the list is remarkable complete, I cannot see any missing bundles at all. --Mrjulesd (talk) 11:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an example, it is missing the last few (including the present) main bundles and weekly bundles since the start of 2015. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • So it misses the current bundle, I'm sure that will be remedied. As for the lesser bundles, these are of less significance. --Mrjulesd (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which pretty much confirms how we are saying this is indiscrimiante if you consider those "lesser" bundles. (which I agree). --MASEM (t) 20:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mrjulesd, No I wouldn't say, "I do not find this interesting." or what ever words that you are trying to put in my mouth. I do actually find it interesting, but I also find it to be indiscriminate and ultimately unencyclopedic. The numbers of those that have viewed this article do not make it any less indiscriminate or any less unencyclopedic. The was no (or little) descrimination used in the creation of this list. The majority of the information is trivial and contained in the parent article. The list is overly excessive. The list also encourages this over excess. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well I think I've said the majority of my points. But I will say this much. There seems to be no question over the notability of Humble Bundles. If that is the case, page view statistics become highly relevant. The fact that there has been 36,000 views over the last 90 days suggest their is considerable interest in this list [1]. We should put the readership of Wikipedia in high consideration in debates like these. --Mrjulesd (talk) 11:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well they ought to be. It's a
    WP:COMMONSENSE argument. A notable topic, with considerable public interest, ought to be kept. Remember the readers. --Mrjulesd (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Page views on their own are meaningless, but with notability they become significant. I contend it is of high quality: but if you think it can be improved, why not improve it? --Mrjulesd (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Page views are meaningless full stop. Why should I waste time improving something that doesn't belong on Wikipedia, as it is a grossly oversized and overly detailed list full of non-notable things? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:22, 8 April 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Humble_Bundles&oldid=1137994682"