Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DGform Multimedia

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. - Mailer Diablo 15:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contested prod: tag removed by anon, so listing here. Does not appear to meet WP:CORP. No real media coverage that I can find, not listed on stock exchanges, page reads like an ad (and everything from "Rinascimento" onward is a copyvio from here). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio means that the user thinks the article is a copyright violation, but I don't think DGform will complain for quoting the plot of their game. Second, DGform is based on "Rinascimento" series, so it would be useful to identify the team with the project. You can't find media coverage because the game is still being developed. Nevertheless, you can't help noticing the Team really exists, so you can't blame their presence in the "List of video game developers". - Armonite, 19:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.55.67.175 (talk • contribs)

• We can't know whether they'd object or not, and the DGform page cited clearly states "Copyright (c) 2006, DGform Multimedia" at the bottom. As for the company itself, if its existence can not be confirmed via multiple independent reliable sources, then it doesn't belong here. If the game hasn't been released yet, and hasn't been the focus of significant attention during development, then the article violates our policy on speculation as well. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 02:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, you can sign your posts by adding a dash followed by four tildes, like so: -~~~~. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• We could write them and ask for a primary source such as a document stating their actual existence in formal and legal terms. After all, minor developers need more support than major ones, particularly operations like these, trying to merge videogame industry, arts and culture. It's likely they follow a different way to promote their product, that's why you can't find them on the ordinary promotion channels. Cultural oriented means like Wikipedia should be supposed to spread games like Rinascimento, more than the ones orientated to entertainment only, right? -151.55.89.241 19:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC) Armonite[reply]
• Two points in response: First, no document provided by the company will meet our sourcing standards (see WP:RS, which states: "In general, Wikipedia articles should not depend on primary sources but rather on reliable secondary sources who have made careful use of the primary-source material...We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a reliable publisher."]). Second, Wikipedia should not be used to "spread" anything. It's an encyclopedia about things that are already notable, not a vehicle through which one can make non-notable things notable (see WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Ok, but encyclopedia has the precise purpose to spread culture, Wikipedia included. And when you spread culture, you usually spread info that not everybody know. Anyway, if you speak about renaissance period, florentine siege and Cinqucento life, culture and architecture you speak about "thing that are already notable". Moreover, WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox provides Self-promotion and Advertising if you manage to keep an objective point of view: I can't find any trace of propaganda language in DGform article! -151.55.70.199 23:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC) Armonite[reply]
• The top section of the "article" is written entirely in the first person from the company's perspective, which doesn't give it the appearance of even-handedness. Neither do passages like "Each DGform production is based on a powerful and captivating idea, a believable background and a well-conceived plot", or "In-depth research and superior attention to detail ensure the outstanding quality of DGform products." It also seems that you've overlooked the section of WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox which states, "Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small 'garage' or local companies are not likely to be acceptable." -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 23:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, non-notable fails WP:CORP. Tewfik^Talk 20:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 15:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, non-notable. Reads like a press release, not an encyclopedia article, so would have to be scrapped and rewritten if kept. Sockatume 17:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This company is not notable at this time. After the release of Rinascimento, this company may become notable, but until that time, this article does not belong on wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maelnuneb (talk • contribs)

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.