Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Divide By Zero (company)


 * 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Divide By Zero (company)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Magioladitis (creator) with the following rationale "Company produced 5 games all notable, send to AfD in necessary. Probably PC games epxerts can find referneces to PC magazines about the company". Well, if they can, great, but I couldn't (and neither could the creator, obviously). And if there are no refs, producing 5 video games is no better then producing 10 designs of sofas of 3 variations of a top hat - none of which is enough to satisfy any notability policy, I am afraid. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 16:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: Unable to find any significant references to establish Notability. --  Darth Mike (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- A7 material. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:37, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. I find it inconsistent to have pages for notable games produced by a company that won't have page on Wikipedia. I am pretty sure that there will be offline references to the company. Not having online material for a company that was disestablished in 1996 is something expected. Wikipedia should ot rely only on online references. A even found something here I guess . There are more online references:, . -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is, unfortunately, not a valid argument. And sadly, out of the three you found, I see a niche unreliable site, a 403 error, and no Google Books preview, so not much to convince me to change my mind. And yes, back then there would be fewer sources, rarely digitized, but unless we can find them, well, we cannot AGF their existence. If no sources can be found, the article cannot stay. Oh, and making notable products does not make a company notable - notability is not inherited and we are not Yellow Pages. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  05:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Notability isn't inherited. Either there is significant coverage of the company or there isn't. Honestly, the company's history can be handled in the development section of any of the individual game articles. A redirect there would suffice. Old sources could exist, but now would be the time to show your work. Alternatively, there would be a case for keeping the article if the child game articles were to be merged up to the parent (some have reviews listed in MobyGames but others don't). In that way, the parent article would serve as a container, even if there isn't independent coverage about its activities. czar  22:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and I meant to comment sooner, as I concur with the nomination and how the concerns of advertising and no signs of independent notability outweigh anything else otherwise. The 1 Keep vote above has not substantiated any convincing sources, let alone any sources that may be genuinely notable. SwisterTwister   talk  22:40, 10 November 2016 (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.