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 keep. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Idol Minds[edit]

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

Article lacks sufficient Attribution for Verifiability of the WP:CORP notability criteria … ((PROD)) contested by author. — The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk) 18:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find this slightly odd - the article has a list of games developed, some of which have articles and are easily found on the internet - reviews etc. Both "Ruin" and "Pain" have had coverage in the media for different reasons. I would have thought that the list of games (which are not "self published" would give sufficient indication of the level of notability to make a PROD unecessary (?)) - is the organisation not measured by its works.? (The other games appear to have a similar depth of coverage)
What exactly is needed here ?? - does it need references to show that the list of games has not be falsified? eg if one takes "Rally Cross 2" it's trivial to show it got independant coverage eg mobygames review sports-gaming.com review gamespot review ign review in fact here is a list via Game Rankings [1] that shows a single game by the firm got considerable coverage, which included several of the major review site. ie The game appears to easily pass a notability test, the company has produced ten games - common sense suggests...
You can also see articles/reviews that referenced this company at [2] gamespy and [3] gamespot - not sure exactly what is wanted here.
Or is the idea that even if the games exist then the company may not be notable? I don't wish to start attempting to solve an issue on the article if the a priori assumption is that the company is non-notable excluding coverage of the games.. Did that make some sense - can someone clarify please. I don't want to waste my time editing the article if the effort will be wasted.Imgaril (talk) 19:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and General notability guideline … An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Also, Notability is not inherited. — The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We're talking about products here - made by the company - not people who worked there for a few days and then moved on. The examples given in the link you gave for Notability is not inherited are nothing like this case. - It's a manufacturer of several notable products - to the extent that it's name gets mentioned in press reports about games it produces, as well as having press reports about the company itself -- eg -- It's not difficult [4] [5] [6] [7] (there are more like this) [8] I still have no idea what you want -to me it looks like substantial coverage that could have been trivially uncovered by a web-search - the article wasn't tagged for expansion - but for deletion - so I don't understand this.
Can you clarify please - given the links I have provided, (some of which are contain sub-links) - do you think the article topic is not notable - or does it just require more work on it? Imgaril (talk) 19:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#No_inherited_notability. — The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk) 20:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you click the links and read them? They directly reference the company. eg (more examples) [9] : first sentence in the article Desarrollado por Idol Minds, Ruin fue anunciado por primera vez en el E3 2010 como uno de los primeros títulos que te permitía trasladar tus sesiones de juego entre Vita y Playstation 3. or [10] : first paragraph Perhaps the PS Vita game with the highest profile after Sony's E3 press event is the working-titled Ruin, a hack-and-slash Torchlight-style RPG with some interesting social features. Developer Idol Minds (Pain) showed off the title during the event right after the PS Vita's official introduction, and as soon as the event ended, we ran to see just what the game would be like. Imgaril (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I kind of agree that at the present time the subject of the article itseald is not notable despite at least two clearly notable games (Pain and Ruin), whether or not Idol Minds becomes notable (covered in reliable, secondary sources) on its own right remains to be seen after the release of their much-hyped game Ruin. Yes, the company's name is mentioned in sources about the games they do, not sources about Idol Minds. Find sources about Idol Minds (the subject of the article), and then, perhaps notability will be assessed. That's what I think is needed: not refs that mention the dev while talking about the games, but refs that talk about the dev. Salvidrim (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are links above that mention the company independently of the games (about jobs losses and about an unamed game in development). eg jobs - one example of many unamed game (same links as above)
I also note coverage of the firm based on expectations [11] the report is about what the company is doing - but the reporter does not even have a working title. It seems clear to me that the developer has become sufficiently notable in of itself for reporters to cover its activities even if they do not have a game to review or preview - (I understand Wikipedia:Other stuff exists - but these are the exact same qualities that make a company notable of itself) - I have to say I'm finding this specific PROD mis-placed, even if it is not the most clear cut case.
I have also noted other similar cases eg eg where the company is briefly mentioned outside a game review/preview at User_talk:The_Bipolar_Anon-IP_Gnome#Hello_-_deletion_request_for_comment (where I have formally complained that the deletion proposer has not done due diligence in the deletion process, and also is non-helpful in there lack of clarification).
I have no idea if people are convinced- but if they are I would still need help in altering the article so that it satisfies.Imgaril (talk) 21:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having read more thoroughly into the sources, namely the one about layoffs and the one(s) in French, I wish to revise my earlier statements -- while this is, as you said, not the most clear-cut of cases, I believe that with some work to integrate these sources into the article proper to assess notability, it could be salvaged. In its current state, it indeed does little to assess its own notability, but I suggest further addition of content rather than outright deletion, especially since after the Ruin release it is not unlikely that more sources and information may emerge about Iron Minds itself. Salvidrim (talk) 21:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Layoffs are specifically mentioned in WP:CORPDEPTH as being trivial coverage. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the source cited above, I believe it qualifies as more than a "routine communiqué", but that is obviously an opinion. Salvidrim (talk) 23:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe a company can be deemed notable on the basis that they cut staff back in 2009. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that I have presented far more than that above.Imgaril (talk) 23:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a useful source to avoid using Primary sources for some of the company history if the article is keptImgaril (talk) 23:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the article could be kept if someone actually takes the time to make it better using that source. I'd rather see a more thorough article with a {one source} tag than see it deleted. Salvidrim (talk) 23:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That article from Denver Business Journal is a good example of WP:RS (and should be added), but by itself it is insufficient, i.e, it needs more than one article about the company … this is not the same as multiple articles about the company's products. — The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk) 00:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added it into the article. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:PRODUCT, notability is not inherited. I don't consider this company a special case that is excluded from the guideline. --Odie5533 (talk) 10:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to your keep vote, would you please concisely explain your reasoning for !keeping? --Odie5533 (talk) 10:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With two notable games (at least), one clearly reliable & detailed source, and the likelihood of more emerging as Ruin gets released, I think this article needs work to integrate information from the reliable source, and probably needs a {one source} tag, but should not be deleted for lack of notability. Salvidrim (talk) 18:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:PRODUCT, notability is not inherited. I don't consider this company a special case that is excluded from the guideline. Could you more directly state how this company is notable within established guidelines from either WP:N or WP:CORP? --Odie5533 (talk) 18:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:GNG specifically says multiple sources. If I hadn't posted the one source we'd still be sitting here with nothing somehow arguing the same point. The fact that I found one source in a local paper does not make the company notable and the possibility of future notability is irrelevant. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is more than one source ,- I have given links to them above, in my reply to Salvidrim. Imgaril (talk) 12:13, 28 September 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) 17:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We still only have two articles in local newspapers. I do not believe that is sufficient to meet the threshold of notability. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two is "multiple", they are independent of the company, and the depth of coverage of the two article combined is fairly significant. As for being "local newspapers", well, yes, they are, but then the vast majority of newspapers in the United States are local in nature. There are very few national U.S. newspapers. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:06, 28 September 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, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 02:03, 1 October 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.
More