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 redirect to Infinity Ward#Respawn Entertainment. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Respawn Entertainment[edit]

Respawn 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)

IP Contested CSD. Company not notable. Might be in the future but WP is not a crystal Ball. Codf1977 (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Codf1977 (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I disagree entirely that this article should be deleted. I myself searched wikipedia for information contained in this article

Respawn Entertainment has just been created by Jason West and Vince Zampella, who were responsible for extremely successful Call of Duty Modern Warfare Series as well as the Medal of Honor series (look these up on Wiki if there is any doubt to the commercial success of these titles) - Respawn has the backing of EA - the worlds second largest games publisher.

The founders of Respawn are currently contesting that they are the intellectual propperty owners of the Modern Warfare series.

Here is an article by ArsTechnica (an extremely well respected source often cited and quoted by BBC News and Guardian.co.uk in technology articles):

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/04/ex-infinity-ward-heads-create-respawn-entertainment-with-ea.ars

Respawn is likely to be extremely well know in a short time, I doubt it would be wise to delete the article, a rewrite maybe useful though :)

Here is a page where the BBC Quotes Ars Technica (linked above) - if it's good enough for BBC its good enough for Wiki:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7334123.stm Williambrodie (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- Not notable company. A couple of start up promo articles only. Off2riorob (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - It's not notable, even if it might be well known in the future we should make an article for it in the future but right now it's just not needed. I Feel Tired (talk) 20:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It's not less notable than Sledgehammer Games which has an article. So I don't see any reason of deleting it. The game company is already notable through the well covered Activision vs. Zampella/West "battle".--PhantomT1412 (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It actually no longer does and is now a redirect. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  15:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Week Keep. The event is notable, not the company itself. That said, the company will most likely become more notable in the future. WP:CRYSTAL aside, rather start early than later. Also the BBC coverage should be added to the article. —  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  01:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to IW. Fine, no crystal balling. Redirect to Infinity Ward or just delete for now. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  15:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral - Telegraph, 1UP etc. But until they actually produce something, this could be a case of WP:SINGLEEVENT. Marasmusine (talk) 11:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This company is going to get big. The founders are well known, and Respawn is more well known than sledgehammer games, which has a page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.235.199 (talk) 00:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The founders are notable (by virtue of the extreme success of their previous games, for example) and so "what they did next" is also notable. The article already contains useful encyclopedic information and the company is something that people are likely to search for by name. JJC1138 (talk) 21:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes you say they are notable I can't help but notice no WP article on either of the "founders" ? Codf1977 (talk) 09:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now - having notable founders is not sufficient for the company to meet WP:CORP. The company has not been subject to coverage by independent reliable sources (in fact, the article simply cites one article mentioning its founding. Up to this point, speculation of the company going to "be big" is simply crystal balling. Until such evidence showing that it can "stand on its own two feet" and satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion criteria for verifiability and corporate notability, this article should wait and be a non-presence here (suggestion to those who wish this article maintained: please resist to speculate on how big the company will be, but please add evidence of the company's significance - cited, of course - to the article. Arguments of the "more notable than X" variety generally become more reasons to delete both topics than reasons to save either). B.Wind (talk) 03:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I see it, there are two possibilities: either the company will be successful, or it will be a failure. Either of those outcomes would make the company notable (in the case of failure it would be notable in contrast with the founder's previous successes), so I would argue that since it is definitely going to be notable at some point in the future, there is no reason to delete the article and the useful information that is there now. JJC1138 (talk) 05:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • BTW All companies are either a success, or failure. If it does not succeed I can't see how that would be notable. There is nothing stopping any future creation of an article if the company becomes notable at some point but at the moment any claim to notability is based on either association (see WP:ORG and WP:NOTINHERITED) or on self published promotion about the future, which runs contra to WP:CRYSTAL Codf1977 (talk) 09:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Though there may only be one reference on this age about the company, there are four references to the creation of this company under the Infinity Ward article. Spitfire19 (Talk) 14:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Redirect to Infinity Ward - The event is notable here, not the company. I have no bias against recreation once it passes WP:CORP --Teancum (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Here's why... http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&q=Respawn%20Entertainment&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=nws:1&sa=N&tab=wn&fp=1&cad=b 174.3.214.24 (talk) 03:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: That's still covering the event, not the company. --Teancum (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect back to Infinity Ward Until there is something above and beyond what's covered there already there's no need for an article. Someoneanother 04:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, or Redirect to Infinity Ward with information merged there, it is mentioned in other articles in what I presume are notable occurances, thus it is entirely likely that readers may search the article, so we should at least keep a redirect in place. Whilst it won't make a good article at this time, what's wrong with an informative stub either at that page, or inside another article? The company has been mentioned by Gamespot news and others quite a few times during the entire Infinity Ward developers leaving event. --Taelus (talk) 08:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Event being the key word. The event that went down between IW employees and Activision is notable, but Respawn Entertainment does not pass WP:CORP --Teancum (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair point indeed. In that case, I would be happy with the "Redirect" option then, as it does strike me as a search term that users would go for. --Taelus (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:CORP, sorry guys. If deleted, save the information and when recreated, readd and clean. The Phantomnaut (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Infinity Ward#Respawn Entertainment. A notable event and a plausible search term, but not notable in their own right. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete They may become as big as microsoft or as small as some bloke what wrotes games in his back room. WP:CRYSTAL come in here, as far as I know we do not have articels on things that may be notable one day, we have artciels on things that are notable.Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 25 April 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.