Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nyu Media

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 no consensus. While the concerns about the COI/paid editing that lead to article creation can be easily resolved through promo-cleanup, there are legitimate arguments both for deletion and keeping, due to different weight attributed to sources and analysis against WP:CORPDEPTH. Czar and Satellizer have found more than enough sources to cement their argument, and are experienced with VG-AfDs, so their opinion to keep seems very strong, but it would be irresponsible for me to dismiss Widefox/DGG's argument that the sources presented lack the depth necessary for the subject to be notable. So I am closing as no consensus for now, without prejudice towards renomination after improvements/expansion based on the sources unearthed in the AfD if the subject's notability is still in question then. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nyu Media

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

sources are primary or product announcements. Fall short of WP:CORPDEPTH (created by serial SPAMMER, promo only account) Widefox; talk 12:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I created this article for a client on Elance.com who wanted his own legitimate article on Wikipedia. By the way, I am not a serial spammer, I was the doing the same for the links which were removed from articles on other pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TORR (talk • contribs) 15:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly you have not disclosed your paid editing anywhere until now. That is against our Terms of Use. Secondly, being paid to write the article has no bearing on the lack of notability. Widefox; talk 15:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Weak sources, fails WP:CORPDEPTH, promotional, violates TOU. Logical Cowboy (talk) 15:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the company has received coverage and mentions in Polygon, Kotaku, Siliconera, Technology Tell, Capsule Computers and Hardcore Gamer. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 08:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which of those doesn't fall foul of WP:CORPDEPTH ? Technology Tell Capsule Computers Hardcore Gamer do for instance (regular product announcement). Widefox; talk 11:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As per CORPDEPTH itself, "if the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[1] independent sources should be cited to establish notability." There's multiple independent sources here. BTW, the Polygon article is a bit more in depth, and Siliconera has multiple articles featuring the company. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 11:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two problems with that argument: 1. quoting the full text reveals "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability." 2. The sources (I checked) are categorised as trivial at CORPDEPTH. Widefox; talk 11:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. And even if what you said were to be true, the other sources I stated above do contain more than just "trivial or incidental coverage." Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 00:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Differ with the quote 1., or differ categorising the sources 2.? 1. is quoted, and 2. others agree on, so it would help if you could reason your case. Widefox; talk 11:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused as to what you mean, but I will add that all the sources I proposed discuss the developer or their games in some detail, so, like Czar says, they are not "product announcements" as you claim. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 23:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indeed fail WP:CORPDEPTH.--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 10:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not one reliable source, either on the page or that I can find. LaMona (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please elaborate. All the sources proposed here are reliable as per WP:VG/RS. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 23:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Blow it up if you don't like what's there, but save for Capsule (which is new to me), I know all of Satellizer's sources were vetted at WP:VG/RS. A few seem more about Yatagarasu than about the company, but the correct procedure here is to merge that up a level to the developer until it can carry its own weight. Every one of the sources discusses products of the company, so regardless of the CORP arguments, the article topic passes the other avenue to prove notability: the general notability guideline with sigcov in vetted WPVG sources. czar ⨹ 23:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't WP:ILIKE / don't. A bunch of product announcements don't make a notable company, and yeah some of the products may be notable but that doesn't mean it is per WP:INHERITED. Sources about the company have yet to be produced. Widefox; talk 23:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The nom was about the article's current promotional state, so I said blow it up if you don't like that—has nothing to do with your link. As for the topic itself, it has sources (Satellizer's, above) that were not incorporated into the article. Nyu is a company that received coverage for making games. The articles are more about the actions of the company than individual games. (I'll add this one to the pile.) There's enough vetted coverage for there to be enough content for an article on the company and for this AfD to be a clear keep. czar ⨹ 00:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although I personally believe we should be more thorough, and quicker to react to paid editing that violates the TOU, my nom clearly states this should be taken on it's merits - so far there's a lack of sources on the company (there's plenty of product announcements). this one - another product announcement. Piling up PR doesn't help me see if it is, in fact, notable. Widefox; talk 01:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Satellizer sources, the ones you call "PR", are from vetted, reliable sources and are in no way press releases. If you mean to say they have a promotional tone, then your disagreement is with the tone of video game reporting as a whole. No different for this article than for any other. I have nothing else to add here without repeating myself, so I'm bowing out czar ⨹ 03:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete utterly trivial company. No notable games. A company producing creative products that produces no notable product cannot possibly be notable--especially inb a field we cover so intensively as computer games. And the firm is essentially trivial in other respects: " a core staff of four people, spread over London, San Francisco and Osaka," almost all the product announcements are for future projects. This article illustrates the defects of paid editing--nobody else would conceivably write this article except someone with coi. I wouldn't automatically reject all such articles--an actually notable company might be foolish enough to higher a paid editor on Elance, and it is even conceivable that they might do a satisfactory job. But in this case, not even the best editor could produce a satisfactory article, as there;s nothing to work with. DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More sources. This isn't about the impact of the indeed small firm by a topic-specific guideline, but its coverage in vetted media—in addition to the above:

http://www.shacknews.com/article/81568/supercharged-robot-vulkaiser-and-more-japanese-indies-coming-via-nyu

http://indiegames.com/2011/11/six_japanese_games_incoming_lo.html [1]

http://indiegames.com/2011/12/nyu_media_capcom_to_publish_lo.html

http://indiegames.com/2012/02/nyu_media_capcom_to_launch_exc.html

http://indiegames.com/2012/08/nyu_media_reveals_second_wave_.html

http://www.hardcoregamer.com/2014/01/22/side-scrolling-shooter-gigantic-army-coming-on-february-5th/71018/ ("Publisher Nyu Media has been on the forefront of bringing Japanese doujin to English-speaking gamers ...")

And plenty more coverage of stories already noted above, e.g., [2]

If you do a custom Google search on the VG/RS page linked above, you'll find plenty more coverage of the company and its products—more than enough to sustain an article, nevertheless a satisfactory one, and nothing requiring Herculean effort. As for the announcements being for future projects—that's (1) the nature of the field's reporting, and (2) only the links you saw above. There is plenty of coverage once the games came out—see the aforementioned custom Google search. The location or size of the firm has no bearing on how it's covered, and no one has actually looked into whether its individual games are notable—they're from a niche Japanese genre and being localized into English. We haven't even begun on the Japanese sources. Mind you, this isn't even my niche, but just look at the amount of coverage! Would think that given recent discussion about my expertise in matters like this, you'd have a little more faith in my research. czar ⨹ 03:56, 15 December 2014 (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.