Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asmodée Éditions


 * 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. Also per consensus, moved to Asmodee. (non-admin closure) w umbolo   ^^^  12:55, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Asmodée Éditions

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete No indications of notability, references are all based on company announcements and fail WP:ORGIND. No references can be found that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. Notability is not inherited.  HighKing++ 12:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep – I'm thinking that at minimum, Forbes, ICv2, and Polygon count as reliable sources, but no idea about the rest. BOZ (talk) 16:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Articles by Forbes contributors - versus staff - have been described on several occasions as unreliable in community discussions (as indexed here). I'll reserve judgment on the other two. Chetsford (talk) 04:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Quite. We happen to have an article about that contributor. David M. Ewalt. It says "deputy editor of special projects at Forbes". --GRuban (talk) 19:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment this is literally the worst BEFORE I've ever seen. Chet, you are out of the dog house! Newimpartial (talk) 16:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

More formally Keep - just click on the French link from the article, and look at the sources there. No, the French article is not really better than ours, and yes, there are many citations of the company website, but there are also many journalistic cites from independent RS in French. Clear pass of GNG and NCORP. Newimpartial (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Yes, too many sources that are just announcements, and that doesn't help, but there are definitely existing sources there and more I can find that are non-first-party/non-primary that at least outline the basic history of the company. And while I would not want to implore a concept of upwards inherited notability, those sources coupled with the number of notable board games under their roof make having at least a landing page to summarize the basics of the company as reported from third-party sources makes sense. --M asem (t) 17:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep I am french, and it's a well-known Role-playing game editor in France. More specifically, that source in Le Monde says: Funded in 1995 by a few excited people led by Marc Nunès, the company has just arrived, less than twenty years later, to the first place of tabletop games and pokemon type cards in France. This one from Le Figaro says it's the european leader of board games. Both are more than enough to make the article pass WP:GNG. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 02:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete The sources are a combination of broken links, press releases, incidental mentions, and blogs. A standard (Google News, Google Books, newspapers.com, JSTOR) BEFORE fails to find anything further. Chetsford (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Asmodee is perhaps the second largest board game company in the world now. Publishers of most non-traditional family board games in the world including Settlers of Catan, Pandemic, Ticket to Ride, Arkham Horror and many others. I'll see what sources I can dig up. This AfD feels like it didn't follow WP:BEFORE. Canterbury Tail talk 18:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment thinking further on this I think some of the confusion may be surrounding the name. I can't find any evidence that the company goes by the name Asmodée Éditions any longer. All references I can find, including their own website, indicates they are just called Asmodee these days. This may help with locating reliable sources as no one refers to them as Asmodée Éditions including themselves. Canterbury Tail talk 00:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Asmodee is perhaps the second largest board game company in the world I find it hard to believe "Asmodee" is bigger than Hasbro, Ravensburger, etc. etc. Chetsford (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Due to Asmodee's purchase by PAI partners for about 1.2B euros, annual revenues given around 150-400 million euros. (Hasbro is $5B).This is because Asmodee has bought out a huge # of publishers over the last 10 years. --M asem (t) 17:35, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So yes looks like I was wrong on the 2nd biggest. It appears (from my own original research) to be the 3rd biggest (by a hair). No one is remotely close to Hasbro, but Asmodee had a turnover of €442m last year compared to Ravensburger's €447m. Making it only fractionally smaller than Ravensburger at that point, and probably larger by now since they've acquired more this year. Canterbury Tail <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 12:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: the French version has more sources that we can pull from (I've tried to do that already). --M asem (t) 17:35, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Move to Asmodee per WP:COMMONNAME. Also keep per sources and size. Hobit (talk) 02:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per coverage by Forbes, Reuters, Ars Technica... sheesh. --GRuban (talk) 19:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep there is coverage in hundreds of reliable, secondary sources, as a ten second Google search easily reveals. As per User:Hobit, I also support a rename of the article to simply Asmodee. Nwlaw63 (talk) 00:53, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.