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. Sandstein 07:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly I would like to think this is in fact actually speedy and PROD material as all of this is simply for either funding, "Companies to Watch and See", press releases and other puffery sources; this company apparently is still being funded and supported by finances because searches are simply finding exactly this, local press releases, advertorial and PR-speak, funding and financing puffery and nothing at all actually substantial outside of this. SwisterTwistertalk 20:02, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Passes WP:CORPDEPTH per coverage in bylinednews articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources. Also passes WP:AUD per national-level news coverage. The article would benefit from copy editing, because it reads as a press release in areas. North America1000 08:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- that's a tough one as they are generating headlines, but CORPDEPTH is still not there: "Scopely aims to build new kind of mobile game business". Could be a flash in the pan and not sufficient to sustain an encyclopedia article. I'd say WP:TooSoon. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The "aims to build" language doesn't mean the company doesn't actually exist. It's language meant to describe the goals as aspirational, not to suggest they don't actually function as a business. Steven Walling • talk 07:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was suggesting that the company would be truly notable when they would have "built a new kind of mobile game business". For now, they are just building it and aspiring to revolutionize etc etc. The coverage reflects that, i.e. fluffy pieces with not enough depth. That's why I felt this subject may not yet be ready for an encyclopedia article. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dane2007 (talk) 21:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - All of the listed links are still only talking about the company's finances and investing including how it's getting its investors, simply none of that is still actually substantial and convincing. The last one, by all means is an exact interview. Also, this would not fix at all the current article which is not only still advertorial, but still too fluffed and puffed with advertising information such as its clients, products and funding.... SwisterTwistertalk 05:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The sources I have provided above within this discussion provide a great deal of background, historical and contemporary information about the company, and do not only provide only information about the company's finances and investing. North America1000 05:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- it's not clear to me why the company is notable. For example, I attempted to edit the lead but I'm stumped at this statement: "Scopely partners[how?] with game developers and global entertainment companies to bring distribution and monetization technology[vague] to free to play games[needs copy edit]." K.e.coffman (talk) 06:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Northamerica1000. Sources provided show notability. They've been getting significant coverage on their activities from RS for nearly two years now. [1] ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 08:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, it's all still PR from when I first saw it hence my nomination. SwisterTwistertalk 21:25, 14 August 2016 (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.