Deletion of List of highest-grossing video game franchises

Comment: The page can't exist without either a massive amount of  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: This article is almost impossible to be without 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: 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 , does not exist, then it suggests appropriate sourcing to truly demonstrate  and  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:GNG||WP:LISTN)

Comment: 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  and risks  issues
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE||WP:NPOV)

Comment: due to fundamental issues with |verifiability that cannot be resolved, as there are no |reliable sources that would resolve them. Also fails  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 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS||WP:OR||WP:NEXIST)

Comment: per Tarkus and Indrian. Article has deep issues with  and  since reliable sources do not exist
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:OR)

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)