Talk:Nyu Media

Notability
(Continued from AfD)
 * I agree "PR" is a simplification - "product announcements" (this one even quotes the PR url)
 * The publisher being an RS has no bearing on the lack of details on the company (vs product). This situation seems to be a polarised. Characterising the nom or the problem as tone is incorrect - it is depth of sources for WP:CORP.
 * The norm in this sector with vetted sites producing sources than can still be challenged, and other articles are WP:OTHERSTUFF. There's too much emphasis here on promotional tone and the publisher being vetted by WP:VG/RS, and not quality of the sources. Product announcements (PR or not) are "trivial" per WP:CORPDEPTH, and in case WP:VG is out of step with that, it needs to be dismissed per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. I would suggest relisting with wider views to reconcile the sourcing issue. Widefox ; talk 8:37 pm, 15 December 2014, Monday (11 days ago) (UTC+0) (restored from history  Widefox ; talk 23:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC))

Individual games
Unused coverage of individual games:


 * http://indiegames.com/2011/07/indie_game_pick_satazius_astro.html
 * http://www.gamespot.com/reviews/satazius-review/1900-6347880/
 * PC Gamer UK via http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/satazius


 * http://indiegames.com/2012/08/exceed_shoot-em-up_compilation.html


 * http://www.siliconera.com/2012/04/14/cherry-tree-high-comedy-club-has-a-new-release-date-in-april/


 * http://indiegames.com/2012/06/release_ether_vapor_remaster_e.html

czar ⨹   06:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Restore
As this has been recreated, can we get a restore/merge of the talk and article pls. As the AfD was no consensus, I've put the notability tag back on, as the issues with sources may (or may not) be still relevant in the new version. Widefox ; talk 12:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * A restore of what? The previous article was deleted as G11, but if you want to restore parts of that, I'd ask the deleting admin. I'm removing the notability tag as it it is not helpful: we just went through AfD and there was no consensus. czar ⨹   14:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Just the talk actually, and I don't know who deleted it - there's no notification on the blocked creator's page.

Timeline

 * Just to summarise:
 * paid editor (undisclosed) creates article
 * paid editor blocked (after new TOU)
 * the AfD closed no consensus - with no prejudice for relisting given new sources (so qualifies now)
 * G11ed (AfD no consensus should have had priority)
 * Recreated (creator #2)
 * PROD added (removed ineligible, Old AfD wasn't yet on, I PRODded in Feb)
 * notability tag added, then removed (by creator #2)
 * DYK self nomination (creator #2)
 * AfD #2
 * DYK contested (on hold D5 during AfD, and concern)
 * Now you don't consider even a notability tag is valid - despite the AfD closing remark as it now being valid for relisting - a step further than merely a tag. A DYK on top?! All without input from the other editors. I find this quite surprising, and would welcome wider opinions from the AfD participants: User:Logical Cowboy User:Satellizer User:Aldnonymous User:LaMona  User:Czar User:DGG User:Salvidrim!, (plus the only non-gnome editor) User:JzG.  Widefox ; talk 10:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Pssst, I say delete so I have no wish to expand this article, I don't even know Nyu Media, Look, Nyu said they make Bullet hell AKA Danmaku in Japanese as Nyu claim to be doujin, but from my experience from playing many bullet hell doujin game example like Touhou or Team Shanghai Alice I never found or know "Nyu media". So yeah I will never expand this article.-- AldNon Ucallin?☎ 10:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy renomination at AfD is for situations with low participation. The idea is that we just had a discussion about it—do you think another AfD is going to bring about a different result? You can look at the page logs to see who performed the G11 (JzG, who was already pinged). I think there are procedural errors in the timeline you described, but we're ultimately concerned with whether the article is notable. I think it should be clear that with a dozen vetted sources deemed reliable by WPVG discuss this company as the subject of their reporting, if not in depth. This is enough to constitute significant coverage under the general notability guideline, and certainly enough to contest a notability cleanup tag. My intent was to put the sources discussed into the article, which happened sooner than I had time for due to the G11. Still, I think my case has been made adequately so I'm going to step aside for now czar ⨹   13:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I can agree on notability based on newly added sources on the article, but can you do something to those single site reference to Polygon about Nyu vs Paypal? It need more references other than from Polygon, and if no editor can't find it, that part have to be removed.-- AldNon Ucallin?☎ 16:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Czar what's the procedural error in the timeline?
 * As for notability, DGG, following my new tool suggestion at Articles for deletion/Opus Software Solutions to evaluate if sources are not 100% independent, but rather churnalism, the first hit of Google "Nyu Media" press release -> put into duplication detector matches source 3.
 * "Total match candidates found: 214
 * "Matching phrases found: 16" Widefox ; talk 22:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * My complaint was with the actions taken in the timeline, not the (updated) timeline itself. Sorry for the delay but, regrettably, I don't have time to pursue this further czar ⨹   09:31, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * In my personal opinion reasonably speedy renomination is appropriate after a no-consensus, but it is usually advisable to give some time to help establish it. the closer properly suggested just that in this case.  As for actual notability, questions of notability are more likely to be resolved there than here.  DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Spee

Polygon PayPal sources
Don't want to get off-topic, so I moved this to its own thread. To answer your question: This said, I don't follow the logic. Polygon is as reliable as VG sources come and there shouldn't be an issue with sourcing the two-sentence story exclusively to the same publisher. Perhaps if its claims were controversial or it possibly was not a notable event... but that's not remotely the case. czar ⨹   17:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments not from nomination template

 * Did you know nominations/Nyu Media czar ⨹   15:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don;t know where to put this as I do not work with DYK, but I personally think this is an extremely poor idea, which can be seen as  promoting and encouraging advertising on WP, even though the present article is not an advertisement. I leave it to others to pursue the matter if they choose.   DGG ( talk ) 17:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * My concern is threefold given the, that despite the quality of work here, and even though arguably reasonable, interesting and worthy in itself:
 * This effectively rewards the undisclosed paid editing (now against our TOU) with bonus promotion, and
 * May be seen as such
 * The sourcing is PR based so lowers the bar for this.
 * I am quite disappointed, especially given the issue with DYKs two years ago. Widefox ; talk 22:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've no experience with DYK, a quick look shows it has no criterion for challenging based upon this concern, although I did find that "D5: Articles nominated for deletion will not be used unless they have survived the deletion process." so it appears ineligible right now, and I'll relay that there. Widefox ; talk 13:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)