- 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. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) IgelRM (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Beenox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to fail WP:NCORP. The most prominent coverage I found is after the acquisition from gamesindustry.biz. A list of games alone is as good as a games developed by Beenox category. I suggest a redirect to Activision and perhaps a merge of the paragraph of the founder departure and new office. IgelRM (talk) 20:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Canada. IgelRM (talk) 20:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Redirect to Activision as nominated based on WP:NCORP. Studio articles that function as little else as lists of games don't demonstrate the notability of the developer without deeper coverage - see thoughts at WP:NOTWORK. That coverage is not really there once you take out all the On X date, Beenox released Y title content. That said, it's not very weak, just not enough to justify an article on presented sourcing. Could be if more of the ilk like the GamesIndustry.biz coverage is found. This outlet seems to have had a porting role in a large number of high-profile games. Is there more out there? ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)- The below sources have established the existence of coverage to warrant a keep. Thanks to @Tanonero: and @Hannes Röst: for taking a look and finding more sources. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:03, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
@Vrxces: I am just curious, and I don't mean to be confrontational, but wouldn't it have been easier if you had looked for the sources yourself and ascertained the potential notability of the article, instead of opening a deletion process?I missread the thread. --Tanonero (msg) 13:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- Keep. There is enough history to show the company's progression and its relevance within the game industry. There is also plenty of coverage on GamesIndustry.biz to demonstrate the company's notability and that can easily be integrated into the article, for instance, 1, 2, 3, and 4 and many more. Wikipedia would gain nothing by deleting this article. --Tanonero (msg) 15:28, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
- I note that I linked the 3 source in my nomination already. Further the 1 source is an interview about places to work, which generally don't add notability. The 4 source is an interview about Activision and licensed games.
- From a WP:BEFORE, the founder Dominique Brown has more coverage than this company. What this AFD tries to achieve is more equal appliance of policy that isn't a video game database. IgelRM (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- Weak Keep. I think there is enough there to justify an article, some more articles from different sources [1] [2] [3] and the article contains more than just a list of titles. --hroest 18:39, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
- The first 2 sources are press releases and after Activision's acquisition. Edit Correction: the 3 source is about Activision and the developer staffing up for Call of Duty, not particular significant? IgelRM (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- Redirect to Activision#Studios, that one Gamesindustry.biz article cited by nominator seems to be the only piece of significant coverage. Interviews and press releases are considered primary sources. GameRant article is by WP:VALNET so it shouldn't be used for notability but it's also fairly standard coverage of personnel hiring, trivial coverage per WP:ORGTRIV. --Mika1h (talk) 23:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- Keep. Sufficient sources to document the studio's notability, though it needs some updating. Go D. Usopp (talk) 02:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Could you please give an example or is a source review table necessary? IgelRM (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Keep. Sufficient sources to document the studio's notability, though it needs some updating. Go D. Usopp (talk) 02:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like a consensus to Keep but the nominator suggested having a source analysis table.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
| Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
Interview with the studio head for being nominated for "Best Places To Work" by the publication
|
✘ No | |
|
|
|
|
✘ No | |
|
|
|
|
✔ Yes | |
|
|
|
Interview with the studio head about Activision
|
✘ No | |
|
|
~ | "According to a report by Benzinga", which means a press release per linked "Source: Benzinga" at the end of the article.
|
✘ No | |
|
|
|
According to press release, 3 sentences article.
|
✘ No | |
|
|
|
|
✔ Yes | |
|
|
|
Few sentences on announcements with Mac focus.
|
✘ No | |
| This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}. | ||||
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any comments on the table?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
- Keep Found another SIGCOV here in a print magazine. While I would have !voted delete with the current sources and have no clue what people are seeing there, this new source proves to me that CORPDEPTH is passed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I have also reconsider that the La Presse article probably gives notability to the founder and company. I would like to withdraw this AfD. IgelRM (talk) 00:48, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
- 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.