Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aldorlea Games


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Aldorlea Games
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There are a lack of sources establishing notability (RPG Fan, Jayisgames do not appear to be reliable). Gamasutra only posted a short press release by the developers. Gamezebo has reviews of games made by the company, which appears to be reliable, but a couple of game reviews by one website don't seem to be enough to support notability for the developer. 92.15.200.197 (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note to Closer The above nomination was copied from Talk:Aldorlea Games . As it appears to be a good faith attempt to nominate, I am completing the nomination process on behalf of the IP editor. Due to the discrepancy between the time the nomination was made and the time I'm listing it, please use the time of this comment for closing purposes. Monty  845  21:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eternal_Eden Another game that uses RPG Fan and has no better reliable sources either, most of their sources are the same as Aldorlea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_Kimori Here is a game that doesn't have 10% of Aldorlea's press coverage and importance, is not even commercial, and yet I see no deletion process: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Night_Trilogy — Preceding unsigned comment added by FelixJamesWatts (talk • contribs) 18:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FelixJamesWatts (talk • contribs) 21:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete unless reliable sources can be found. Individual gamers like "Casual Gamer Chick" are not reliable sources. - MrX 01:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Interviews, , , . Looks like quite a few more out there as well. Plus,any awards the games won are awards the company won for producing said game. Turlo Lomon (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: To address the nom's basic claims: RPG Fan is reliable and Jayisgames is "situationally reliable" per WP:VG/S. In addition, Gamezebo is also an RS. It looks to me like there are multiple RSes. -Thibbs (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Strange, although there's a tick next to RPGFan, the discussions linked don't support a conclusion of reliability, unless I've missed something. 92.15.200.197 (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Good catch. The edit that marked it as an RS was this one. You might want to contact User:Axem Titanium to see what he meant by "+confirmed" (i.e. where was it confirmed?). I'd also bring this up in WP:VG/S talk to get it cleared up because not all of the reliability determinations there have proper rationales and that should be corrected. -Thibbs (talk) 19:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Not finding any independent, reliable sources to back this up other than the few Gamezebo reviews (all from the same writer), which aren't enough. And the interviews are not particularly reliable—nothing to establish notability. There's also a large amount of link overloading, but it doesn't help the core WP:N issue. czar   &middot;   &middot;  16:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: There are 5 reviews of Aldorlea games (3 Stars of Destiny - Millennium  - Asguaard  - Sylia  - Moonchild ) on Gamezebo from 5 different reviewers, plus 3-4 previews and 2 interviews. Why are you not saying the truth? There are also several press releases (not just "a small one") from the company published by Gamasutra . And several interviews, previews and reviews from reviewfix , Rampant Games, Gamertell  , truepcgaming  , RPGamer  , RPG Watch , Jayisgames, Gamersdailynews  etc. The company also has several reviews and interviews on RPG Fan which is considered reliable for many other entries on Wikipedia - so why not here? Objectively RSes are all over the place, in fact the article could use an update. If you are going to delete this, then you should delete about half of the indie developers on Wikipedia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.209.88.183 (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that re-prints of press releases qualify as independent sources in establishing notability. Also, can you show examples of RPG Fan being considered reliable for "many other entries on Wikipedia"? 92.15.200.197 (talk) 13:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * How is this more notable for instance? Gamezebo, RPG Fan and some other links. Just like here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.209.88.183 (talk) 15:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This game was "kept" using as RSes articles from... RPG Fan, Gamezebo and Jayisgames. Check out the contibution by Someoneanother 10:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC) and how it convinces everyone and tell me why the contribution by 88.209.88.183 (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC) is any worse, in reality it cites far more sources and yet 92.15.200.197 (talk) 13:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)  still doesn't find "it's enough".
 * Keep - Notability established with several articles from Gamezebo, RPG Fan, Jayisgames, Big Fish, Groupees and countless others. Also was at the London Game Festival
 * Keep - Gamershell (which is considered reliable) published a lot of stuff about Aldorlea such as or . With Gamezebo and RPGamer both considered reliable as well as per WP:VG/S, that already makes 3 different sources, 4 if you consider RPG Fan whose tick in WP:VG/S was removed just now (convenient but not very fair) and 5 with Jayisgames as "SR". That's not even counting all the other "uncharted" sources such as Gamertell or Reviewfix (which seems to show up a lot as a reference ). Also several articles on jeuxvideo.com which is easily the biggest gaming site in France  . There are plenty of RSes for this. The page just needs a facelift with the appropriate links.
 * The sources you cite are press releases or capsule descriptions of games. Neither of these rise to significant independent coverage, in my view. --Batard0 (talk) 18:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Here's a review of sourcing:
 * A press release discussing new games. There are quite a few press releases and announcements, which don't qualify as reliable sources and must be ignored here.
 * There are a some reviews of its games, like this. I judge Gamezebo.com to be sufficiently reliable for the subject at hand, but this review (and others) focus on the games, not the developer, and as such do not amount to significant coverage of the developer. The notability of games is not conferred upon the company that develops them per WP:ORGSIG.
 * There are no mentions in book results.
 * In the web results, there's an interview with the founder here, but there's very little coverage of the company itself outside the text of the interview, which is a primary source because it's the founder talking about the company. There's little else of any significance in the web results.
 * All in all, there's not enough significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. --Batard0 (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Note - Please clarify the following: aren't notable games made by a company a proper way to demonstrate notability? Most links here are about the games themselves but how else is game making company supposed to be notable other than through their games? Additionally, I recall countless Wiki articles about gamemaking companies focusing mainly on the games they produce (which seems logical). If anything Aldorlea does have a fair lot of interviews compared to other indie companies. This really needs clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.209.104.131 (talk) 19:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest reading WP:ORGSIG, where it discusses inherited notability. I grant that it doesn't talk directly about companies inheriting notability from their products, but the spirit of it seems to be that companies don't inherit notability from notable things associated with them. I think what the guideline is getting at is we'd like to see coverage in reliable sources of the company itself, rather than its products, subsidiaries or people associated with it. There's a difference between a major article about Ivory soap and a major article about Proctor & Gamble, the company that makes it. The former article might be about how great the soap is, with a passing mention of P&G as its manufacturer. This doesn't give us much to say about P&G, other than that it makes the soap. The latter article, on the other hand, may discuss P&G's corporate history, management, future plans, etc., and says a lot about P&G that we can use in an article. It shows that people have taken notice of P&G, and hence that P&G is notable. That's how I understand the distinction in the guidelines. Hope that helps. --Batard0 (talk) 19:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. However I have to insist as I see a matter of double-standards then. Case in point, how is this any different for most of these small companies. For instance HanakoGames The sources are objectively no better. A couple of interviews (Aldorlea has them too, in bigger quantity and more reliable, including one from  Erin Bell who is notable enough to have her own Wiki page ) and a line about a reward in 2007 but Aldorlea was at the London Games Festival in 2012 which seems to me a bigger sign of  notability. In all fairness I can't see how AldorleaGames is not fulfilling the notability requirements if HanakoGames (and the  many similar articles on Wikipedia) are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.209.104.131 (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2012 (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.