Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HafenGames Studios

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HafenGames Studios

(Find video game sources: "HafenGames Studios" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Delete - The article is highly unnotable, and is about an individual's games (of which most are vaporware, unsourced), like a compilation. The page has already had a speedy deletion request, of which was removed by the creator without any change to resolve the situation. MrRatermat2 (talk) 12:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note:

♔ 18:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

The article also isn't encyclopedia suitable --MrRatermat2 (talk) 14:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How so specifically? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you see 40 pages of
Game Maker games that haven't been released yet in an actual encyclopedia? --MrRatermat2 (talk) 14:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

If they were notable, yes. If they weren't notable, no. This doesn't affect this article and how its topic passes or doesn't pass our
well outlined inclusion criteria. When you address a topic's notability, you have to address it within Wikipedia's interpretation, rather than outside opinion. What I'm asking is how specifically does it fail our standards? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

One of Wikipedia's qualities is that it can maintain only subjects that are notably important. The downside is that anyone can edit it, leading to articles about individuals, businesses, products, ect of no significance. --MrRatermat2 (talk) 16:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yet that still doesn't answer how this article is either notable or non-notable under Wikipedia's guidlines. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The significance of HafenGames does not really matter - I do intend to expand the article, which should explain why I marked it as a stub. And let me remind you of some other "insignificant" articles that haven't been touched for more than a year, e.g. Heavy Iron Studios — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danerdreal (talk • contribs) 20:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy Iron Studios belongs to (or used to) THQ. If you have a problem with the article, you should state it, and nominate it for deletion if no improvements are made. --MrRatermat2 (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Secondly, if you intend to improve it: Improve it! Don't just mark it as a stub and leave it at that. --MrRatermat2 (talk) 21:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as "significance" on Wikipedia, there is only
WP:GNG. Whether a stub or not and whether other articles exist or don't is irrelevant. Article quality does not affect what external reliable sources cover the topic, which is our inclusion threshold. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrRatermat2 (talk) 12:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete as not passing
WP:VG/RS. All the sources appear primary. The games they produced are also not notable and even if they were, notability is not inherited. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No hits in
♔ 18:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - No coverage whatsoever. Anybody can call themselves a indie developer. -- Whpq (talk) 22:46, 18 December 2013 (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.