Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creat Studios


 * 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 rebuilt as a list. If the list turns out to fail LISTN/LISTPURP, no prejudice against renomination, but the consensus here is confident that there's a good niche to be filled. (non-admin closure) Vaticidalprophet 21:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Creat Studios

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Looking through WP:VG/SE's search results, there appears to be no significant coverage, as required by WP:GNG, about the company. The name appears in passing in several articles where its games are covered (some of which are undoubtedly notable) and in interviews connected to these games, but coverage of the company itself is lacking. WP:NCORP is seemingly not met. IceWelder &#91; &#9993; &#93; 22:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 22:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 22:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Weakest of keeps I'm of the opinion that when you have a studio that is the creative side behind more than 2-3 games (and definitely over a dozen) that otherwise don't fall into a higher level (like a franchise series), a landing page for that studio is helpful to have only for navigational purposes, even if its hard to show notability for the studio otherwise; this page meets that. That said, I know it fails WP:N/GNG and NCORP so I would not fight strongly to keep it. --M asem (t) 16:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Renaming the article to List of games developed by Creat Studios would make more sense then, wouldn't it? Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That would be a valid title, but you'd still have a LISTN problem. At least keeping at the studio with a list of games (where each game's existence and evidence that it was created by Creat here can be sourced) can be augmented w/ first-party sources to outline the studio's history until (if ever) such a time more sources come. Be aware that this is obviously not meeting GNG's or NCORP significiant coverage requirement but it would be better than just a list. --M asem (t) 17:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I fail to see how the article is viable as what would essentially be a list of games if a list of games by itself would fail LISTN. Wouldn't a navigation template be a simpler solution to this? IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 10:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Need discussion about WP:NLIST and other alternative solutions to a list such as navigational templates.
 * Keep A valid list article, plenty of blue links, just changed the name to have "list of" in the title. As for coverage of just the studio, I see an interview giving information about them https://www.engadget.com/2009-04-30-joystiq-interview-creat-studios-vladimir-starzhevsky.html but doesn't matter since the article is clearly a list article and unlikely anyone will bother expanding it to anything else.   D r e a m Focus  10:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , this stands in stark contrast to the above comment that rules out renaming it "List of ..." as it would fail WP:LISTN. Recall that LISTN requires that there are sources that discuss the games developed by the company as a collection, not individually. A plucked-together table with a handful of bluelinks does not satisfy LISTN. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 10:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Navigational lists don't follow the same standards as other articles. Never have, never will.  Its listed somewhere at Stand-alone lists   D r e a m Focus  10:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep and move to List of games developed by Creat Studios, which is where the consensus seems to be going for. The company itself fails WP:NCORP as there is no significant coverage of it in reliable sources, but the article should be instead repurposed into a navigational list. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste  (t, c, l) 03:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  17:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, they have over a dozen notable games and are notable. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 17:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Notability is not inherited. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 17:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Notability is not inherited from the parent topic and nobody who voted keep has been able to prove it is notable on its own. Namcokid  47  21:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   D r e a m Focus  23:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep as navigational list at a minimum, and note the retitling suggestions above. Whether the company itself merits coverage per se, it produced numerous games on which we have articles, and we index games by the company that produced them. As Masem notes above, "a landing page for that studio is helpful to have for navigational purposes", which makes LISTN not relevant or particularly helpful; see also Dream Focus's comments above. The nominator's suggestion of a navigational template undercuts their argument that this page should not exist in any form, per WP:CLN. I just don't see how deletion accomplishes anything other than poking a hole in a standard way we organize content. postdlf (talk) 16:00, 27 March 2021 (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.