Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phoenix Games (3rd nomination)

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.

(non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Phoenix Games

)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only one source, no notability asserted beyond a trivial award. Almost all inbound links are referring to a horrible shovelware PlayStation company of the 2000s which has no relation whatsoever. The PlayStation developer doesn't seem to be notable either, as its article has been deleted twice. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Delete' - per the results of the first AFD discussions, which never mustered up any GNG suporting rationales or sources.
WP:HEY. Sergecross73 msg me 03:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - first of all, it's very important to note that all of the previous AFD nominations were clearly talking about an entirely different company. Anything more than a very cursory examination will reveal that the current article does not talk about a video game company, so the previous AFDs have absolutely no bearing on this discussion. The Charles S. Roberts Award given at the Origins Game Fair is not trivial. Agreed that this article does need more sources, but I don't see how deleting it will help improve what sourcing we do have. BOZ (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BOZ: Where do you see sources? I sure as fuck see none. Don't say "keep, it just needs more sources" unless you know that more exist. Because then everyone's just going to blindly follow you without realizing that there are no goddamn sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, then I'll re-evaluate things without considering the past AFDs, but that being said, I don't exactly follow your stance either. The current sourcing isn't enough to meet the GNG, nor write an entire article around the subject. Between the articles current state, and your comments so far, I don't see how you're getting to a valid keep argument. Sergecross73 msg me 20:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm going to respond to this far more reasonable second reply, and since I have no idea where the hostility and serious lack of
WP:AGF in that first reply is coming from, the last thing I want is to encourage more of the same. So, since we are dealing with a publishing company that existed roughly from 1978 to 1980, it is likely going to be difficult to find sources on the internet. Of course, difficult to find is not the same as non-existent, as I have found numerous times in other cases. Looking at the various products they published as listed at RPGGeek and BoardGameGeek, several of their products did get reviews in gaming publications of the era, so it is impossible to know without seeing these reviews how much they discuss the company. I see a mention here, but I am not sure how much else is in that book which may help. I am thinking that the company's biggest game may have been the second edition of Bushido, although I may be wrong and it could be the award-winning Streets of Stalingrad. I will have to try to see what kind of print sources I can dig up during the week, as online sources may be slim to none. BOZ (talk) 05:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 00:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Boz has done a nice job of improving the article since this AfD started. There is certainly tons of room for improvement still, but I wish the average "keep" vote was accompanied by half as much effort to fix the AfD'd article's issues, and more to the point, I'd say we have enough sourcing and claim of importance to justify hanging on to this article.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BOZ.
talk) 09:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per
WP:HEY. Boz is, as always, most impressive. Hobit (talk) 17:36, 22 April 2017 (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.

~~Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Phoenix_Games_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1138229161"~~