Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wired Productions

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. and none is likely to develop in a strong enough manner to tip the mixed, policy-based !votes Star Mississippi 03:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wired Productions

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Provided references do not prove notability. Fails WP:CORP Brayan ocaner (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Brayan ocaner (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Brayan ocaner (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Brayan ocaner (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Brayan ocaner (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a publisher of multiple notable games, with relative longevity for a tech company. What's specifically wrong with what's there? Jclemens (talk) 00:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As the nom noted, CORP is not met, and by extension, WP:GNG... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. It's one of those weird cases where the company has made some notable products (games) but WP:NOTINHERITED. If their work was significant they should be winning awards as a company or such. I am not seeing this in the article. Business as usual, I guess. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Award and nomination were added to article. Kindly check out it. Fabiobengario (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A BEFORE provide enough RS from reliable independent sources in game industry. After a Google search I investigate the references of article. Based on provided WP:SIGV, It meets WP:GNG, at least to my eye. Alimovvarsu (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An award-winning company (award and nomination were added to article), publisher of multiple notable video game and receiving significant coverage in independent game websites. passes WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Fabiobengario (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Fabiobengario (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Note: The *company* did not win any awards. The award was to Emily Mitchell who created the game - also not a BAFTA but a MVC/Develop award. Similarly, the BAFTA nomination was for the game not the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:34, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The company is mentioned in some of the RS, though the RS isn't great quality; most of the good RS mentions the products. The company however is prolific, its games are certainly mentioned, and the company has won some high profile awards, so passes GNG and WP:CORP Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article content does not determine notability. Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. And finally, the nominator left a low effort vaguewave nomination without articulating why the extent of the sources available on the internet, not merely the ones cited to the article, does not establish the topic as meeting the guidelines highlighted by WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Haleth (talk) 12:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on above keep voters's arguments and availability of enough coverage. Zeddedm (talk) 10:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I removed it from the Video game WikiProject's request list a while back for not being notable. It clearly still isn't, the sources range from trivial coverage to press releases and lacks significant secondary sourcing that passes WP:NCORP. I'd like to see the article creator provide WP:THREE best sources that prove it is notable and maybe I would change my mind, but so far none of the keep !votes have demonstrated as such, besides WP:ITSNOTABLE. Simply winning awards is again not enough to indicate standalone notability, and allowing companies to make articles solely based on their press releases risks turning Wikipedia into a method of advertising that goes against WP:NOT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftifying or weak delete: I agreed with Piotrus that it is a company that have released several notable products, but sources about the company itself are really lacking. I have tried to create an article for this company in the past after seeing a request for this at WP:VG/REQ but ultimately I don't think there are enough sources out there to justify a proper article right now. This two sources are quite good, but they are essentially interviews with the founder and there are a lot of PR talk. Notability is not inherited. The editors who cited WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXIST really need to provide an example of what's out there that can actually be used to demonstrate notability instead of just citing the policy/guideline. Ultimately, I think the company can become notable one day (as long as some gaming RS are willing to write about them), so draftifying the article is a good option. OceanHok (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's no reasonable reason for moving it to draft! The article is notable or not, if so keep and if not delete. Additional to sources cited in the article, by a Google searching I found [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. All of provided sources indicates notability of company clearly. Alsothe company has won a notable award. Notability has been established. Misasory (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But none of these sources are about the company itself. These sources show that one of their games are notable, but did not show that the company itself is notable. OceanHok (talk) 04:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article on publisher of notable games. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am of like mind with Keep arguments. Publisher of various notable video games, It could be considered as a notable tech company. In my opinion citations are good enough for demonstrating notability of company for current content in article. Elbatli (talk) 21:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is essentially a listing taken the information from the company website. There is no historical analysis, merely a copy of what is available on the web and of little encyclopeadic value. The games themselves, there is no mainstream AAA titles I can see. Looking at the references they are a clear violation of NCORP, specifically WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS. It is the usual routine coverage. The coverage above is more to do with censorship that the game itself, showing the level of interest in the company. Not a single reference in the first block provide in-depth coverage of the company. It is all routine muck. scope_creep^Talk 02:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, your comment is extermly unqualified about this company.ZanciD (talk) 13:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But he is not wrong. Majority of the sources listed in the article are about the products they have released, and not about the company. We need sources that discuss the company in a significant manner (e.g. its history), not sources that talk about the games they have released. OceanHok (talk) 11:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the sources provided by "Ahmed" are enough to demonstrate WP:GNG to you.Fabiobengario (talk) 11:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I really couldn't understand the reason of delete voters! The page has significant coverage in reliable sources based on the page's references and mentioned sources in this discuss. The company with several notable products that was featured in reliable sources. It clearly meets WP:NCORP, as sources are proving that. ZanciD (talk) 13:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 12:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too promotional as it stand currently. Perhaps it can be modified to a more neutral point of view. Nweil (talk) 16:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that you didn't read the article! Because there is not any promotional word or advertising! As I said there is not even one promotional word, even one word. Fabiobengario (talk) 11:34, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After reading all the references so far, I believe it passes WP:NCORP and justify subject's notability. Notability also is asserted by award and nomination that are definitely independent refernces.Ginbopewz (talk) 11:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because the company is publisher of some of notable recent-released video games, so finding sources focusing on company (no its games) is difficult. Anyway I investigated that and found [6], [7], [8], [9], [10],[11], [12]. Sources are focusing on the company directly. Passes WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Ahmed ^(talk) 14:44, 3 March 2022 (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.