Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CDP.pl


 * 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. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000  ( talk,  contribs ) 00:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

CDP.pl

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

(Following is the analysis, skip to conclusion if you wish.)

This Article was originally moved from CD Projekt to CD Projekt RED in March 2012 by, stating that the company had changed its name (which it did not, CD Projekt RED is a subsidiary established in 2001, eleven years earlier). The then-redirected CD Projekt article was reinstantiated by the same user in April of that year. Then, in October 2012, the revived article was again moved to cdp.pl (a WP:TMRULES violation) by the same user, again stating that said company changed its name (and again falsely, CDP.pl was a newly established company for digital distribution inspired by GOG.com). At this point, the article was basically the CD Projekt article under a wrong name (nothing what a moved could have fixed, but here we are). The CD Projekt redirect remained untouched until July 2014, when worked out a new article, this time the claim being that CD Projekt was a division of cdp.pl, a subsidiary of CD Projekt RED (all wrong), but other content being mostly accurate. Over a course of four years, the article was expanded further, and using that same content, the cdp.pl article was expanded as well (copy-paste, no rewrites as the History sections never stated cdp.pl even once). And now that I came by this article, I noticed how wrong it was: It was a broken version of the CD Projekt article (in a very bad shape), but under a false banner (including image). I trimmed down everything that was unrelated to CDP.pl, which basically encapsulated everything. Literally. I left be only the infobox and two lede sentences, of which one is sourced with a semi-reliable polish paywalled source (nothing against paywall, but as only a-bit-reliable source? [while the other was fan article]) This did not seem right, and I added a notability tag, but I figured I'd rather bring it here. Bringing it up to date, practically nothing links here: Dreamfall Chapters: The Longest Journey claims that CDP.pl was in charge of a Polish localization, although from my knowledge CDP.pl is not a localization house, wherefore I might have to check the source's reliability and correctness. The only other article that links here is Hard West, which's special edition was distributed by CDP.pl (I found this one to actually be true).

Conclusion: CDP.pl is unnotable and practically invisible and such not relevant to the English-speaking world. The article's history is a complicated mashup through misinterpretation of primarily one user, and has no proper content on its own. The article fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV, and should be deleted. Lordtobi ( &#9993; ) 23:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

*Delete - It's the polish version of EB Games without the notability Withdrawing my statement - Pmedema (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC) *Delete - As per nom and WP:SOAP. Best, Nicnote  •  ask me a question  •  contributions  18:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 17:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

*:: & : The polish version of the wiki article talks about what the corporation does, it's history, starting capital, etc. It seems to me to be trivial and potentially coming under WP:SOAP. In my opinion that should also be AfD'd. The references are poor (mostly from the same source - i.e. their own website) and the rest are either from a government database or a two paragraph online article from a national newspaper. Best, Nicnote  •  ask me a question  •  contributions  14:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Simply translate the Polish article my dude --Cornea Scratcher (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The polish article has the same problem, CD Projekt's history and a lot of unsourced stuff (likely WP:CITOGENESIS). Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 15:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Convoluted splits and mergers, plus name changes, are a problem here; we have related holding/parent company CD Projekt (a GA, too), its notable and reasonably well known internationally subsidiary GOG.com, another reasonably well known subsidiary CD Projekt RED... and then there is CDP.pl. Now, CDP.pl was named CD Projekt until 2012, then changed its name, and the old company changed its name... this name changing is confusing as hell. There is no doubt that most of those entities meet WP:NCORP, but the name changing obscures which one, perhaps all, perhaps some (since a source about CD Project may refer in fact to cdp.pl, or not). So the op, User:Lordtobi, is right that it is at best difficult to treat all coverage in those articles as supportive of notability (and the history sections, on pl wiki too, mix up history of all companies to some degree). Nonetheless, I see some mainstream, in-depth coverage of the latest incarnation in question, clearly referring to cdp.pl: and  from Gazeta Wyborcza, a major Polish daily - that's two in-depth sources, which for me is the minimum requirement to meet WP:NCORP. Here's the third one:  from Rzeczpospolita (newspaper). They are from different years, so it's not coverage of one event, but proof that the company has enduring notability and is important enough to warrant regular coverage by Polish mainstream media. That's enough to make it a keep in my book, and some of you should know as that as the author of WP:CORPSPAM I don't say that often. PS. Coming to this I expected to add to the delete vote, and nominate this for deletion on pl wiki, which is what I usually do... but nope, this is notable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  06:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: Given Piotr's insight, it seems that it may be deserving of a en.wiki after all. Best, Nicnote  •  ask me a question  •  contributions  08:43, 28 March 2017 (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.