Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Fat Simulations
- 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. — Cirt (talk) 01:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Big Fat Simulations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested prod. Notability not established for the developer. Also see previous discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 88#Big Fat Simulations Ost (talk) 15:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm pretty sure that making games that have been number one on the iTunes chart for weeks counts as notable? You really do hate this article don't you? -- Thomas888b (Say Hi) 17:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no prejudice against the company. You brought up the article at the video game project and you were told that it is not notable. It was ignored for a while and still has not shown to be notable. You erased the prod without noting why or improving the sourcing. There are no third-party sources in the article and I only saw sources to establish notability for one of the company's games. Notability is not inherited from a game to its company. Additionally, iTunes chart status is considered a bad chart to use as it only pertains to a single retailer. —Ost (talk) 21:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you bothered to look at the edit history, I did remove the prod with a reason. I would like to challenge you to try and correct some of the problems with this article if you are going to say that I haven't done so. I believe that this is important encyclopaedic material, and it should remain. there are far more articles on Wikipedia that are less notable, and have less quality, which are ignored. What makes this article so special? -- Thomas888b (Say Hi) 05:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize for misspeaking; I meant removing the prod without fixing the primary sources/notability issue. All sources are first party and other stuff existing on Wikipedia doesn't mean we should add another non-notable page. If and when the company becomes notable, the page should be created. I already noted that a page could probably be created for one of their games and this could be made a redirect to the game, but the company is not notable in the Wikipedia sense. —Ost (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think it would be a good idea to create another article, which one would you suggest. As you have come up with thi idea, I hope you are willing to help me set it up. -- Thomas888b (Say Hi) 19:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As noted where you previously posted at WT:VG (linked above), Office Jerk is likely notable based on it's third party coverage. I do not have interest in creating a page for it, though if you are going to I would suggest starting the article from the sources in links that I posted in the conversation at WT:VG, keeping WP:VG/S in mind. Including the sources from the start should serve to establish notability. —Ost (talk) 20:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think it would be a good idea to create another article, which one would you suggest. As you have come up with thi idea, I hope you are willing to help me set it up. -- Thomas888b (Say Hi) 19:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize for misspeaking; I meant removing the prod without fixing the primary sources/notability issue. All sources are first party and other stuff existing on Wikipedia doesn't mean we should add another non-notable page. If and when the company becomes notable, the page should be created. I already noted that a page could probably be created for one of their games and this could be made a redirect to the game, but the company is not notable in the Wikipedia sense. —Ost (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you bothered to look at the edit history, I did remove the prod with a reason. I would like to challenge you to try and correct some of the problems with this article if you are going to say that I haven't done so. I believe that this is important encyclopaedic material, and it should remain. there are far more articles on Wikipedia that are less notable, and have less quality, which are ignored. What makes this article so special? -- Thomas888b (Say Hi) 05:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no prejudice against the company. You brought up the article at the video game project and you were told that it is not notable. It was ignored for a while and still has not shown to be notable. You erased the prod without noting why or improving the sourcing. There are no third-party sources in the article and I only saw sources to establish notability for one of the company's games. Notability is not inherited from a game to its company. Additionally, iTunes chart status is considered a bad chart to use as it only pertains to a single retailer. —Ost (talk) 21:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm pretty sure that making games that have been number one on the iTunes chart for weeks counts as notable? You really do hate this article don't you? -- Thomas888b (Say Hi) 17:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Ost (talk) 15:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I could only locate press releases. Marasmusine (talk) 13:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Important aritcle. -- Thomas888b (Say Hi) 12:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No notability-establishing citations in article, reasonable effort at source review doesn't turn up any. The non-press-release mentions that it does get all seem to be coverage of its releases and don't give us significant coverage of the company itself. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2011 (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.