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 delete. The About.com source looks good, but in general multiple sources are required. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

High 5 Games (H5G)[edit]

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

No assertion of notability as it applies to Wikpedia's standing policies has been made. Just because a company exists, that does not necessarily confirm notability. Strikerforce (talk) 04:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It should also be pointed out that the article was recreated after previously being deleted[1] (only thirty days ago) via CSD by an administrator who expressed concern that the article was being used purely as an advertisement. Strikerforce (talk) 04:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search[2] yields two results; one being the subject's company website (not acceptable as a reference) and an About.com article. In my opinion, that does not establish notability warranting inclusion in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not Facebook. If the article's author just wants to make sure that people "have access to knowledge about what this company is", (as they have written on the article's talk page) then I would suggest the creation of a Facebook page about the subject. To this point, nothing has been presented that justifies the subject having its own Wikipedia article. Strikerforce (talk) 04:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The company IS one of the biggest casino game producers in the world -- not sure if anyone is disputing that fact. It seems to me that it is an omission by Wikipedia to have such gaming companies as International Game Technology, Bally Technologies, and PartyGaming, but not High 5 Games. The company has a number of mainstream popular games that have permeated pop culture -- just see one fan's Twitter page on H5G's Da Vinci Diamonds: http://twitter.com/#!/DaVinci_Diamond. Its games have also been on TV on Fox Business, according to its website. Not sure how high the threshold is for notability, but is it really less notable than any of the hundreds of other entries out there, including this one on a non-impressive 19th century cricket player: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Sugden ----mjspdr23

Now we're using Twitter as an argument for notability? You're not helping yourself here... and, by the way, your argument about the cricketer fails other stuff exists. Strikerforce (talk) 05:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. I didn't make the twitter argument, but here is some substantial news coverage: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=xprnw.20110110.NY26874&show_article=1 | http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/h5g-poised-to-become-njs-first-licensed-online-gaming-company-113242214.html. Nyulawschool (talk) Nyulawschool (talk) 06:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Both items provided are press releases issued by the company itself. Can't use 'em. Strikerforce (talk) 06:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, your earlier response of the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS critique is not enough. You need to do more work in actually establishing premises of your arguments rather than just asserting conclusions. If you read beyond the first paragraph of your link, you would see that in only the second paragraph:

When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. The problem arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought because "other stuff existing is not a reason to keep/create/etc."

Why should wikipedia be inconsistent with what is a permissible gaming company page? Otherwise this whole project is merely arbitrary. Nyulawschool (talk) 06:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See the talk page for the unwarranted accusations made by the user proposing the deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:High_5_Games_%28H5G%29#Deletion_challenge There has never been a response to the company being relevant and notable in the gaming industry and current news. It's getting personal for some reason when the article merely adds to the wealth of information for Wikipedia users. Nyulawschool (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:42, 15 March 2011 (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) 15:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough sources to establish notability.--Sloane (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see what's wrong with the About.com article by Bill Burton as a source. Marasmusine (talk) 12:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per my commentary above, I don't think that is enough to establish notability. That is essentially a blog post and blogs are typically not reliable sources.--Strikerforce (talk) 12:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs are typically not acceptable because they are self-published sources. If it can be shown that Burton's article is subject to a publisher's editorial oversight, or that Burton fulfills the "established expert" caveat of WP:SPS, will you accept it as significant coverage? Marasmusine (talk) 12:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would go a long way toward accepting it, yes. Strikerforce (talk) 12:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my one shot defence, then :) The published source route: The New York Times Company is legally responsible for the content on About.com. One would normally find a disclaimer for content not vetted by the publisher (for example, forums). There's no disclaimer on Burton's article, and in addition Guides are held to editorial standards ([3]). If we go the SPS route: Bill Burton's "work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" - Books: [4], [5], Magazines: [6], [7]. Marasmusine (talk) 12:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... good argument. That makes me lean more toward the keep side of things, but I'm not going to withdraw my nomination for the simple fact that I believe that once a nomination is made, the debate should run its course, unless the result is blatantly a keep or speedy keep. Strikerforce (talk) 13:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The one source I can find that is explicitly about the subject of the article is the about.com article... but (1) one article does not meet the "significant" coverage aspect of WP:GNG, and (2) it is unclear whether it is anything more than a blog post. The other mentions in actual media are extremely trivial, i.e., the sources discussing the New Jersey e-gaming bill are effectively about that legislation, and only mention this company in passing. All other sources I can see appear to be press releases and/or are of otherwise dubious reliability. Does not meet notability criteria. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you are thinking of Wikipedia:N#cite_note-2 which recommends multiple sources. "Significance" is a descriptor for quality, not quanitity. With only one significant source, yes, there is an argument for merging High 5 Games into a broader topic. Marasmusine (talk) 12:14, 26 March 2011 (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.