Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dream 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. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Dream Games

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:NCORP. A helpdesk post states that this is a corporate creation, so is UPE. WP:ADMASQ. The article itself is just about a load of fundraising, not about the corporation. Its only product does not have an article. Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 09:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 09:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 09:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 09:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 09:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 09:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions.  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 09:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment the creator of the page is, and looking through their edits, I rather doubt that they are an undisclosed paid editor. (Unlike the HD poster, who is.) No strong opinion on the notability, but I have seen worse sources survive an AfD. Tigraan Click here for my talk page ("private" contact) 09:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the sources currently in the article make this company pass WP:NCORP—specifically WP:ORGIND, as the sources simply re-publish info published by the company. I haven't done a search yet on my own though. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 09:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete I found similar sources in my own search that just announce the value of the company, some investments and repeat the CEO This one talks about who owns the company and lists some of its games, majority of which are copied from the Google Play descriptions of the games. Albeit reliable, as I said above these sources fail WP:ORGIND and therefore cannot be used to determine notability. Without any other sources, this company fails WP:NCORP.  ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 13:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is a common pattern to regurgitated press releases: announcement of stuff, quote from CEO or suchlike, and short company blurb at the end. 4 out of the 5 sources in the article at the time of nomination closely follow that pattern, 2 of them explicitly attributing "a statement".  Paid editing or not, if one's only sources are press releases, promotional articles are what one is going to get.  Whether other sources exist is hard to know.  These aren't exactly narrow search keywords.  And all of the news articles that I could find, that I could read, turned out to be more regurgitated press releases.  How do we know any of this stuff is true?  We have only the words of the CEO and the venture capitalists in press releases.  Uncle G (talk) 10:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Do we not consider Bloomberg News and Tech Crunch to be reliable? Hobit (talk) 04:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article says little about the company's product. Most of it is about its funding and growth rate. I've seen several such articles created on Wikipedia by an employee in the last few years. I assume that these are what matter to the company's managers (though they're unlikely to be of interest to general readers) because they're hoping to sell the company to Softbank or another such investor that is guided largely by growth rate rather than profitability. Maproom (talk) 12:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete almost WP SPAM. Oaktree b (talk) 14:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete Due to the phrasing of this article, the authors history, and other aspects of this article. I have reason to believe that this article falls under WP:G11. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PerryPerryD (talk • contribs) 16:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I recieved direct feedback from an Administrator. Decision change to normal Delete PerryPerryD  Talk To Me 17:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @PerryPerryD You are entitled to offer your G11 opinion. I think the overall outcome of the AfD will provide a fuller consensus than solely your opinion plus that of any putative deleting admin. Feel totally free to express your opinion in the way thaty seems most appropriate to you. We need your opinion, ideally uninfluenced by others. However thank you for your willingness to listen to other opinions. Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 18:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep - the number of people playing the game, and the fact that the company is the fastest growing unicorn in Turkey, make this a keep. The sources are reliable, and meet WP:NCORP. However, to make this even more palatable for everyone, it should be about the company and the game. Later on, the game content could be a fork. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  23:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Both the number of people playing and being the fastest growing unicorn of a nation isn't listed as a criteria for notability. I've told above why the sources in the article (+5 not in the article) don't meet NCORP, and you haven't even bothered to explain how they do. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 09:06, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. @Timtempleton please clarify how it follows WP:NCORP PerryPerryD  Talk To Me 15:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * In WP:NCORP's primary criteria section, it says "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." I count multiple reliable secondary sources, all independent, including CNBC, Bloomberg and multiple TechCrunch sources. Even Daily Sabeh meets the criteria. The metrics are icing on the cake, making it an obvious keep for those not well versed in sometimes misunderstood policies. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  21:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Facepalm moment. The primary criteria section follows up with subsequent sub-sections detailing each mentioned criteria, where you can find that "independent of the subject" also requires the content of the source to be unaffiliated: "Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject". So saying "oh it's the damn CNBC, they are not affiliated with the subject" isn't enough. None of the sources are independent by this definition. ~Styyx Talk ? 20:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep per Tim and the sources in the article. Hobit (talk) 04:45, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, coverage is predominantly regurgitating press releases. Notability not met (yet). Stifle (talk) 09:37, 24 March 2022 (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.