Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IndustryMasters

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. ✗plicit 03:31, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IndustryMasters

[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)

IndustryMasters the company(?) and IndustryMasters the game (formerly IndustryPlayer) fail WP:ORG. I could not find in-depth coverage in reliable sources online.

There are five sources cited but actually eight in total; three are pasted in the middle of the article as external links. Citation 1 is a permanently dead link. Citations 2 to 4 verify that the IndustryMasters website was used to host one event (one game) of a competition in India from 2006 to 2010. Citation 5 does not mention, but is being used to verify the existence of, the event and competition. The first external link is a YouTube video announcing that IndustryMasters won a Learning Technologies Award, a private initiative. The second external link is a WBS source that briefly mentions IndustryMasters twice in the context of the WBS working with them. The Warwick Business School source is an announcement of its partnership with IndustryMasters.

The sourced content does not indicate anything particularly remarkable about the IndustryMasters company(?) and the rest of the article, including information about its gameplay and utility, is wholly unsourced. Its biggest claim to fame is winning an award in 2020 in its niche subset of educational games.

This article was recreated by Sunshinebr after its preceding article IndustryPlayer was deleted on 6 June 2008. Sunshinebr justified the recreation by saying they added sources, but evidently the sources are not in-depth or independent of the company and nobody had bothered scrutinising them until now. All of this article's content was written by Sunshinebr (other users' edits being general cleanup) and nearly all of Sunshinebr's edits are limited to this article.

Seems to me that an article for a non-notable game and later company was recreated and managed to pass unnoticed for several years. Yet through all that time, not one reliable, independent source covered either the game or company in detail, hence a failure of WP:ORG. Yue🌙 01:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Organizations. Yue🌙 01:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am the contributor sunshinebr. some inaccuracies in Yue's commentary _ IndustryMasters is a registered trademark for a proprietary and unique business simulation platform with hundreds of simulation variants, used by major corporations and business schools across the world. To call it non-notable is a distortion. - The activity in India was not 1 game but many editions and variations, and several top business schools. - The Learning Technology awards are a prestigious annual industry event in the UK. Not exactly a "private initiative" as Yue has stated. It may not be US-based, but is important in our industry, recognizing exceptional standards and performance as well as extremely close collaboration with a major academic institution. - I have removed reference 1 (the dead link) from the CPA of Australia as it seems to be out of print now. at the time of original publishing it was a valid reference. - The IndustryMasters platform continues to develop and publish in 2025 and will shortly announce major technological advances in business simulation programming. I would hope that Wikipedia would advance into the 21st century with its thinking, and provide a useful reference to the world across academia and industry.

. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunshinebr (talk • contribs) 10:46, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability on Wikipedia is established by citing independent reliable sources providing enough detail on the topic, not just stating about its subjective importance or awards; this is especially true for articles about companies. ObserveOwl (talk) 03:14, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing notability here against WP:NCORP. The sourcing present in the article fails to support significant coverage that would detail key information to describe the business and its products. The article is littered with promotional jargon that is generally not encyclopedic at all. The sources indicate some recognition in the field, but these are scattered amongst products or business practices that fail to provide context to the business or really evidence anything about its core notability. If the business is notable within or outside its industry, broader sourcing about the business would be expected. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:30, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot see it's notability either. Business descriptions, paid and self-published sources only. Maybe some sources exist. --Unicorbia (talk) 13:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is an unbolded Keep here so Soft Deletion is not an option. A source review would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if notability surfaces, this article appears WP:TNT worthy, especially given the non-improvement since 2008. The Learning Technologies Awards might be a relevant trade award here, but that doesn't save the article. IgelRM (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of source review was suggested here? The first 3 are about from a conference, the 4 a homepage of an institute, 5 a gala video and 6, 7 on the Warwick School partnership. That's a clear delete. IgelRM (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:N. I doubt sources will surface, but even if they do, this is written in an unencyclopedic tone in many places, and would not be worth preserving. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2025 (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.