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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Artix Entertainment[edit]

Artix Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artix Entertainment (2nd nomination) as unsourced, this re-created version has also been flagged as lacking sources for over a year. There appears to be a WikiProject for this company, despite its producing only a few games, but that WikiProject has not resulted in any improvement in sourcing. If anything, the last year has only seen the article bloated with even more unsourced text. It's clear that there are fans on Wikipedia, but that does not seem to translate into reliable independent sources. The only Google News hit was a press release of the company's first anniversary party, and in the first several pages of Google hits I did not find any reliable independent sources which are actually about the company rather than its games. It verifiably exists, but so does my guinea pig. Guy (Help!) 21:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't see why this wasn't just re-listed properly during the 3rd nomination. Far too much emphasis is being put on "process" and not enough on net impact to the project as of late. JBsupreme (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't relist it since it was two months stale, and there appeared to have been some changes to the article in the interim. The article sat at CAT:AFD for that two months before anyone noticed, as well - so the possibility existed that the nominator might just leave it be. I thought it best to give Guy the option. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a fair explanation, thank you for clarifying. JBsupreme (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Just because the company created a few company that doesn't mean its notably, who the hell are you the one to be bias and state of your povs to be significant on behalf of wikipedia. Who says that if a company created less than 10 game thereof it isn't a significant company. I see Blizzard only made 10 games for the past decade.

Anyhow, according to Google Search it is more than notable as seen in IGN, WarCry Network, Massively, these are all top 100 gaming review company. Moreover, whether are they are fans or not FYI the biased User:JzG. That is none of your business, the fact is they didn't fancruft as far as i can tell in all of 2009 contribution. If you think WikiProject Gaming are fans, than I say all of WikiProject are fanbase community, just because their are focus is on science or knowledge that doesn't equate mean their passion doesn't equate with fans. --173.183.102.184 (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those first two links appear to be press releases. When gaming sites are sent press releases they post them. They can't be used as an indicator of the subject's notability. Reach Out to the Truth 15:53, 25 January 2010

You are totally synthesizing things. Many gaming sites itself have a public database for gaming developers e.g. MMOSite Company (Info: Hanbitsoft), so it would be a surprise if they have the information. Most company these do have contracts for media statistics. e.g. Forrestor, Gartner, iSuppli...etc. Unless you can prove otherwise, the IGN & WarCry reviews remains valid. FYI, Artix Entertainment never release a press release. The ones who did are related partnership with IGN ads & SocialWise Inc show in here and just about every search results in that source has a page covering company info. Also some even covered their products at CES 2007 which is beyond enough notability for the article to be kept. --173.183.102.184 (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The review would be valid if it was a review, but it's not. Ignore the fact that the Review tab is highlighted, because that's clearly not a review. But I did find a real review from IGN after a few seconds of searching. Note however that a review for a game does not automatically make its publisher notable.

And just because you can't find press releases on the publisher's web site using an external search engine doesn't mean the publisher doesn't issue press releases. Check out this IGN article about another game from the same publisher. See anything unusual about the first paragraph? It explicitly refers to the fact that it's a press release. Even if it didn't, it's very easy to tell if something is a press release written by some PR guy or if it was really written by IGN staff. Reach Out to the Truth 21:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep sufficient sources to show notability. Unless there is some reason to doubt the facts, even press-released based material is good enoguh forthe basic facts of a company's existence, and its products. Aa=s it has produced many notable products, it is notable. DGG ( talk ) 05:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per DGG. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 22:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'm not sure if it is pertinent or not, but The (DC) Washington Times has an article on AdventureQuest. It is the Jan 07, 2007 edition on page D2. It goes into the game in a decent amount of detail, but only mentions the company as having made the game.--Rockfang (talk) 10:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Scott Mac (Doc) 23:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I closed this debate as delete on the basis that despite assertions by the keep voters, no independent sources have been found, and without third party sources we have neither independent verification nor evidence of notability. However, since DGG has contested my close, I've reoppened and relisted so this contention can be examined by others, or independent sources can be found.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 05:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 05:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Looking at their profile on gamespot, most of their games don't have reviews on the high profile sites. Ironically, their only game which has a long review, WarpForce, got deleted from Wikipedia, while their seemingly less notable products are still around, complemented by fanboyish articles on the characters in these games. Routine news announcements, like what titles they released don't impress me much. But I did find reviews of some of their other products, even though they were missing from the product wikipages [1], [2] (click "full review") [3] (ibid.) [4] [5]. I've AfD some of their video games. It would be easier to decide if the company is notable or not after we decide if their products are or are not so. Generally, a company that produced multiple notable products is considered notable, see Delta Tao Software (and its AfD). Pcap ping 05:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - For reference, the notability guideline for companies is WP:CORP (I don't think it has been mentioned yet). Marasmusine (talk) 07:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Notability is not inherited from the products; in any event mmorpg.com, about.com and mmohut.com are not considered reliable sources, which leaves us with the "light" IGN review for one game. Press releases do not count towards notability. I've not finished a full search yet; my !vote is based on the evidence presented at the time of writing, and WP:CORP. Marasmusine (talk) 07:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • About.com is generally accepted as a reliable source. As for the other two gaming sources, why are they not reliable? The mmorpg.com review author is a staff writer. The mmohut.com author is one of the two site admins/owners [6]. This is not user contributed content. Pcap ping 15:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For sites dedicated to a specific type of gaming, they have good/decent Alexa traffic rankings: mmorpg.com (rank world/US: 5,124/2,554) mmohut (27,529/13,414). So they're not someone's obscure personal site. In comparison, the generalist IGN has 222/101. Pcap ping 16:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mmohut went through a period of hijacking external links on wikipedia pages, is basically a self-published site ran by two brothers, and was struck off at WP:VG/RS. About.com: Yes, sorry, noticed that the about.com source was a staff review, not a user submission. In any event, there's still no significant coverage of the company itself. Marasmusine (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete mostly per nom. The company has not received the significant coverage required for a verifiable article, and most of their products are nonnotable as well. We can't be basing articles about entire companies off ofjust a few sources. Even with some references, the article is still largely unsourced (and likely impossible to source with independent referencing). ThemFromSpace 15:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If this was deleted once before, wouldn't that make this a candidate for speedy deletion (G4, I believe)? -- Jelly Soup (talk) 03:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; no sufficient independent sources appear to exist to support the claim that the subject is a notable game developer. Its games also have questionable notability seeing as one of their biggest has just been deleted at AFD.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Multiple reliable sources available regarding the company and its products from publications covering the MMO market. [7] [8] [9] [10]- hahnchen 16:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm^(Talk) 20:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The AfD for AdventureQuest closed as keep, but all their other products were deleted, although I think that WarpForce is somewhat notable too given the IGN review, despite that fact that they found the game crappy. Pcap ping 22:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Let this page stay. We already lost the "AdventureQuest Worlds" page where I objected to it's deletion on it's Articles for Deletion page. And the game was in the middle of it's Darkovia part. Someone revive it please. Rtkat3 (talk) 1:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The place to appeal for resuscitation of a deleted article is WP:DRV. You'll have to read about the procedure and then be eloquent and persuasive. -- Hoary (talk) 03:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No one opened a page for that one. And tonight is AdventureQuest Worlds first Chinese New Year. Rtkat3 (talk) 1:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. It seems that three quarters or more of this article is utterly unsourced. The article has vocal support above; why do these supporters not add sources to the various claims made? (Do reliable sources perhaps not exist?) -- Hoary (talk) 03:15, 11 February 2010 (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.