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. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Entertainment Design and Research (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)

Apparently non-notable company. Most sources are to the company’s own website or to mere news articles. The closest claim to notability having once been apparently listed (circa 2009, it seems) on Forbes’ “Most Promising Companies” list ([1]). It’s not there now, so I can’t confirm. A search on Forbes does not turn up any articles about the company; 15 where it’s mentioned, though.

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregory Short (executive). TJRC (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. "mere news articles?" I'm pretty sure news coverage (and books) are all we use to establish notability anyways. A dead Forbes link is no reason to delete, as we can assume it was added by a Wikipedian in good faith; if needed, a thorough Wikipedian could go to a library to confirm. (also, Forbes seems to like covering the company in other contexts). Overall, plenty of coverage, frequent mentions in the press to EEDAR as an expert source of info, and their studies get plenty of coverage in the mainstream press (and more here). Page needs to be brutally worked into shape, though, the subheadings are appalling. Earflaps (talk) 15:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I admit "mere news articles" was a little terse and opaque; thanks for calling me out on that. I now realize I was just coming down with the flu (just clawing my way back today), and claim that for an excuse for my imprecision.

What I meant by that phrase is that there are news articles that refer to the company, and maybe get a quote, but none of those articles are about the company. The indication is more that they're a steady supplier of studies, and of quotes to reporters, but not an indication that the company itself is notable. The articles you cite are each examples of that.

To sum up, my observation is that the only material I can find that is actually about the company is (1) the company's own web site and (2) this Wikipedia article. In other words, it does not appear to have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." TJRC (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, poor thing, hope you're feeling better! I'm sure I was much more terse than you, I was just a bit confused by your wording. I def see your general argument, as this isn't the most famous company in the world - I think I'd still stick with weak keep, partly because of the dead forbes link and overall coverage, but then I'm prone to inclusionism (and a big fan of the "lots of minor coverage can be added up into something significant" clause in GNG, which I know if very up to interpretation). Earflaps (talk) 15:44, 29 January 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.