Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Überplay


 * 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Überplay

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Advertising for a non-notable religious board-game maker. The piped links with the irrelevant surprise targets are a hint, and the photoshopped billboard on their web site says it all: "THE BEST GAMES YOU'VE NEVER HEARD OF" (translation: OUR GAMES ARE NON-NOTABLE). Reswobslc 07:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete per WP notability. The "best games you've never heard of" on the company's website just about says all that needs to be said.  Zchris87v  09:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - Non-notable spam with a hint of duplicity thrown in (see piped links per nom). Personally I'd have speedied it as it doesn't actually assert notability. --WebHamster 10:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep as one of the major publishers in the field of German-style board games; at least two of their games - Alhambra and Hoity Toity - have won the highest awards given for such games. The nominator is misinformed that Überplay are a religious board-game maker; that's just one of their imprints.  Percy Snoodle 11:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep extremely important publisher of hobbyist games, some of which (e.g. Reiner Knizia's "Ra") are among the best-known within their genre. In 2003 they published "New England" which won the coveted "Game of the Year" award from Games Magazine, as well as "Wildife" which won "Advanced Strategy Game of the Year".   Reliable sources should not be a problem: I found this one within seconds, and there are many more. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  12:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: Adding to Starblind's finds: and . Seems to be worth keeping, altho the article would probably benefit from a rewrite. Yngvarr 13:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Aside from the sources found above, the company produced/released multiple games that had WP articles demonstrating sufficient notability before the article on Uberplay even existed. Their article doesn't really portray the company's significance (aside from linking to its games' articles) but as shown by Andrew and Yngvarr, adding a few references/links can easily change that. Let's just make sure these sources are actually added to the article. -- Kicking222 15:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment If this publisher is indeed notable, but no one adds any substantial content to the article, then I think it should still be deleted (perhaps to be recreated when someone has something to say). If you subtract the "we love board games" advertising pitch, the only thing left is "Überplay is a manufacturer of board games a,b,c,d,e,f".  That alone doesn't merit an article. Reswobslc 17:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If a manufacturer of board games can't be notable by manufacturing notable board games, then what could they possibly do to become notable? "While playtesting 'Hoity Toity', Überplay's design team accidentally discovered a cure for Cancer."? Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  19:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Notability isn't inherited, but they could receive major industry awards, non-puff piece press, something about them that's unique e.g. they only employ one-legged New Guinea cannibals with post graduate qualifications, you know, the usual ;) -- WebHamste r 19:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment it's true that notability isn't inherited in the other direction; A subject being notable doesn't make every part of that subject notable, so a game by a notable publisher doesn't become notable. But notability of part of a subject does make the whole subject notable, so a publisher of notable games is notable.  If notability doesn't propagate upwards then we get into all sorts of trouble; things linke Physics lose all claim to notability because they don't inherit notability from aAstrophysics, Biophysics, etc... Percy Snoodle 08:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Their games have won major industry awards, as has already been noted. Game of the Year is extremely significant, as is Spiel des Jahres, the closest the boardgame industry has to the Oscars or the Emmys. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  19:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The game won the award, not the company. That's like a director getting the shins of the Oscar statuette because the actor won the award for best actor in his film. I meant industry awards, errr, err, like services to gaming or somesuch. Generic business awards that relate directly to the company. And don't forget the cannibals, you never know, there's always an outside chance! -- WebHamste r 19:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment no, it's like saying that the award counts for the actor and the film. Which it does. Percy Snoodle 09:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Even if all this is true, I would have never guessed it by reading the article, since the article is essentially blank. Perhaps someone voting "Keep, this company is notable" can actually write an article.  Saying "Keep, this company is notable" is not a valid rationale for a proposal to delete an essentially empty article. Reswobslc 21:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is starting to get silly. You're saying that the industry's highest honour, Spiel des Jahres, doesn't count, but "generic business awards" would?!  Did you actually read the SDJ article?  I quote: "the winner can usually expect to sell 300,000 to 500,000 copies".  It isn't the Lower East Appleton Chamber of Commerce Award for Prettiest Lobby Furniture Arrangement or whatever.  People recognise it worldwide and it has a huge impact, just like winning a major Oscar would.  To follow your Best Actor Oscar example, the actor would of course recieve an article, as would the associated movie, the director, other stars, producer, studio, etc.  I think you're misquoting/misunderstanding what "notability is not inherited" really means. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "Can usually expect" is not the same as "did get". Surely "people recognise" should be prefixed with "some"? There seems to be some usage of WP:WEASEL words going on here I'm afraid. As regards the actor/Oscar analogy. If an actor receives an Oscar, from a WP POV, he deserves an article based on his own notability. His winning an Oscar does not automatically mean that the film is deserving of one too. The film may have flopped, received no publicity and been a total failure, but the Oscar award is based on the actor's own performance/work. This is what I mean by inherited, and I don't think I'm misreading the guidelines. A best selling game could be cranked out by a totally non-notable company that folded 2 days after the game was lauded. This doesn't reduce the games notability, but the game itself doesn't infer notability on the manufacturer. They are totally separate entities from a Wiki standpoint. At least that's my understanding of notability inheritance. I could of course be wrong.  WebHamste r  13:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, with the discussion above, I've added a little bit to the article in question, and maybe some others might want to jump in as well. I still stand by my keep vote, and my suggestion to improve the article. Yngvarr (t) (c) 13:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with previous comment, and if Spiel des Jahres is so important, perhaps the effort spent on telling us we're nuts for not knowing how wunderbar this award is can be put into adding that information appropriately into the article (so that it asserts notability). Reswobslc 18:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep as publisher of games winning the industry's highest awards. Rewrite to emphasize these awards and to provide citations from independent coverage rather than self-promotion.  If you haven't heard of RA nor ALHAMBRA, you probably haven't heard of any Eurogames enough to judge notability. Barno 20:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Article needs improvement, but that is not grounds for deletion. This company has produced several award winning products and produces a good deal more than religious themed games. Edward321 05:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Starblind. A company that has produced award-winning games has certainly gained some glory and notability for itself as well, "WP:NOTINHERITED" refers to relations which are not very relevant to the context. Also, the nominator should know better than making this kind of edits, soapboxing for the deletion of the article in the article itself, in an utterly ridiculous self-referencing fashion. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually, you should really pay more attention to things before you call them "ridiculous". It's bad karma, if nothing else.  By now it's fair to say I have figured out that the article is going to get kept, so to publicly conclude I'm "soapboxing for its deletion" is sort of ridiculous itself is it not?  Do you realize that in your haste to revert the comment you didn't like added, you also reverted other unrelated changes to the rest of the article? Reswobslc 13:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Regardless of the adjective used to describe the comment, it was certainly ill-considered as it breached Avoid self-references.  WebHamste r  14:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Does anyone else want to jump on the bandwagon and come up with even more adjectives for that one edit? Sheesh, if the article itself were anywhere near as long as this AfD, it would almost be a Featured Article candidate. Reswobslc 18:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Do we take that to be an admission of regret then? And one mustn't confuse quantity with quality dear boy :)  WebHamste r  18:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If my aspirations including becoming an admin, then I suppose that would be a regrettable action. But since criticizing those who "wiki-talk" versus those who "wiki-walk" has exactly the same consequences whether done here or in an article, I can't say that I can associate any regret with inappropriately doing so in the article itself.  As a single isolated incident, I'm not about to get blocked for it.  I am referring to any person can't lift a finger to assert notability in the article, but who can argue with mucho gusto for how important this company is in an AfD.  By the way, what is the deal with so-called Camille Cleverly?  (that's not even the correct spelling of her name). Reswobslc 19:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete: it just seems a load of rubbish in my opinion - they're games that wouldn't look out of place in a charity shop. Agree with the "The best games you've never heard of" slogan making it automatically not-notable. To me it is just a waste of an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard n (talk • contribs) 17:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I would probably have to take you to task for the final portion of your justification: a companies slogan is not a criteria for notability. Yngvarr (t) (c) 17:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.