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. "an independent source stating the subject exists is by definition, notability" is an exceptionally incorrect understanding our Wikipedia's notability policies, as pointed out by responders. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 14:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joyland (Beijing)[edit]

Joyland (Beijing) (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)

Appears to fail WP:CORPDEPTH by a wide margin. I found no significant coverage of this company in independent RSs. Rentier (talk) 18:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Chinese article is apparently unsourced too, so unless there is a Chinese-fluent editor around to search for sources it should probably be deleted. If for some reason it stays, it should be moved to Joyland (software developer).ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:28, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NB. using google translate will screw with some of the wording and make 'Beijing Happy World Technology Co. Ltd' appear as 'Happy World BES Co. Ltd some of the time. A Guy into Books (talk) 21:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aguyintobooks: The sources prove that the company exist, but what makes it notable? Nothing in the links you posted suggests to me that it passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Rentier (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Rentier: There are four good references here, an independent source stating the subject exists is by definition, notability. I will admit, the coverage is not substantial, however: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[2] independent sources should be cited to establish notability." since all these sources are exclusively written about said subject, they are not, by definition, trivial. therefore the requirements of WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH are satisfied. A Guy into Books (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Aguyintobooks: "There are four good references here, an independent source stating the subject exists is by definition, notability." Not exactly. See also: WP:ITEXISTS. If you think that what is basically just WP:PROMO is one of the "good references" then it's probably not suitable for inclusion. A bunch of non significant references can't Voltron into a significant reference, some of them have to actually be significant in the first place.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. SCE agreed to co-work with Joyland, Falcom's Kiseki series may publish on PS Chinese version
  2. Joyland get permission of Ao no Kiseki

This company has presented Chinese versions of Falcom's games, it meet the requires in WP:CORPDEPTH. --!Panzerkampfwagen! (talk) 06:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  13:17, 27 August 2017 (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