Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dream Games (2nd nomination)


 * 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 and Salt. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 04:29, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Dream Games
AfDs for this article:


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

See the first AfD just two months ago, where this was deleted. This article cites reliable sources, but those fail WP:ORGIND. WP:NCORP requires independent sourcing, which also includes "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". None of the sources, which are all re-publishing info already published by the company itself, can be considered independent by this definition, thus making them unusable to establish notability. I had done a search myself online to find sources in the previous AfD, and a search now doesn't show anything extra: nothing has changed since the previous AfD and this company is still not notable.

I had tagged this for speedy G4, but it was removed by the same non-AfC reviewer who moved this draft into the mainspace, and who also just happens to have created Royal Match, a game of this company. ~Styyx Talk ? 14:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Organizations, Companies, Computing,  and Turkey.  ~Styyx Talk ? 14:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm a bit confused as to how you're hand-waving away coverage like this CNBC source, which is very high level, mainstream source that's giving significant coverage in terms of detail and noteworthy accomplishments. Sergecross73   msg me  19:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Quite early in that particular source you can see "[...], the company told CNBC" (and later as well). It then proceeds to give some background information about how shit our economy is at the moment, then states in a single sentence that the company was formed in 2019 after Peak Games was acquired by Zynga, makes a very short comparison with Trendyol and Getir, and after that it is almost completely repeating the statements of the CEO. This fails WP:ORGIND (a part of WP:NCORP), which states that the content itself also must be independent. The source is reliable, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with using it in the article, but it just cannot be used to establish notability. I don't know how you are confused by something that already was in the nomination statement. ~Styyx Talk ? 20:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Are we talking about the same source here? I'm confused by how you came to that conclusion. I still am. Obviously things like interviews or press releases that are just replication of the subjects own words are first party accounts and not usable for notability. But a lengthy article with some comments and quotes from the subject is absolutely not the same at all. Much of it reads as CNBC's own words. If you're discounting all the sources with that sort of reasoning then I'm leaning keep here. Sergecross73   msg me  20:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * What part of the source is "original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking", apart from maybe the comparison with other Turkish unicorns? ~Styyx Talk ? 18:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Everything not in direct quotes. Again, the fact that they merely got some info straight from the source itself does not suddenly turn it into an entirely first party account. Especially when it's clearly not a press release and there's clearly no actual connection to a publication like CNBC. It's nice to see your concern to some degree - many editors try to use interviews or press releases to prove notability - but where you're trying to draw the line is far too strict here. With your sort of reasoning, very little would ever meet notability standards. Sergecross73   msg me  19:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That's how I would've analysed the sources if the subject wasn't a for-profit company. Original content is mentioned only in NCORP, so I believe treating the sources as if the subject wasn't a company is wrong. But everything not in direct quotes? Even the background on Turkish economy part helps to establish notability? ~Styyx Talk ? 19:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete Same as last time, it's press releases and routine funding announcements, nothing notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, possibly salt. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 00:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Merko (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Throwing fundraising announcements, most of which are about the exact same number and published on the exact same date (18 January 2022) isn't going to get us anywhere. Also the Milliyet and 2nd Habertürk sources aren't significant at all with only one sentence of the articles being related to this particular company. ~Styyx Talk ? 18:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep - the subject has received very detailed, high level, non-routine coverage from high level third party sources like CNBC and Bloomberg. It meets the WP:GNG. Sergecross73   msg me  19:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Except it's supposed to meet WP:NCORP because it is a company. With reference to the sources you've listed, you should pay particular attention to WP:ORGIND.  HighKing++ 19:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, the CNBC and Bloomberg sources are independent third party sourcing. And if you can't tell that the "in a nutshell" banner at the top of NCORP is just a paraphrasing of the GNG, then I don't know how to help you. Sergecross73   msg me  20:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a company/organization therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. There are particular criteria for establishing the notability of a company. Also, unless blatantly obvious (e.g. Blog posts, no attributed journalist, Forbes contributors, etc), I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are *corporately* independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than just WP:RS for establishing notability.
 * We therefore require references that discuss the *company* in detail. As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content".
 * "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. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH.
 * Just about all of the references fail ORGIND never mind CORPDEPTH, since they're various forms of regurgitated press releases and announcements. This from Intellinews in turn references this CNBC article which is also listed in the article. Some of the articles provide an overview of the Turkish gaming market as well and some discuss other gaming companies and titles - none of which are relevant for establishing the notability of this company. These are just one of several that report on this specific announcement from the company. Some of the references contain a description of the company including details of its founders, date the company started, list of games, details of previous rounds, etc, but these details can all be found in other announcements too - which shows the information is not "Independent Content". For example, this post is a lengthy post which contains most of what I've just mentioned - and sources the information as "press release". As per WP:ORGIND, these types of funding announcements don't meet the criteria for establishing notabiltiy as they do not contain any "Independent Content". There is no information that is *clearly* attributable to sources unaffiliated to the company, there is no independent fact finding or investigation, these types of article simply regurgitate the company announcements. Once we accept that funding announcements fail ORGIND, we're left with directory entries for games or reports on revenues generated by games - again none of which meet NCORP criteria.
 * Since none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 20:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Merge to Royal Match as WP:ATD, as Royal Match is the companies only product, which is notable through these reviews: Appspy Common Sense Media. Jumpytoo Talk 04:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, possibly salt per Ari T. Benchaim and User:HighKing.Signal Crayfish (talk) 10:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as per user:Sergecross73. LittleNirvana (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree that CNBC and Bloomberg count towards the general notability guidelines. WP:NOTABILITY clearly states that you must pass either the general notability guidelines or a subject specific guideline, not both.   D r e a m Focus  03:46, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not meet wP:NCORP. CNBC and Bloomberg stories are routine events for a startup company. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * What exactly do you expect from a startup company (this is a $2.75B startup company that has received $467.5M in | funding. It passes WP:GNG. LittleNirvana (talk) 10:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That's my exact thought! Your standard start-up company also has dozens of fundraising announcements. Dream Games is just a run-of-the-mill thing. They just happen to have some of their people try to get their article created. Also, to understand the relation of the GNG and other SNGs, see this, which states that "SNGs can also provide examples of sources and types of coverage considered significant for the purposes of determining notability, such as [...] the strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for organizations and companies". There aren't many ways to interpret this. Either this means that companies meeting the GNG is irrelevant, as they have to meet NCORP and NCORP only. Or it means that the "Independent of the subject" part in found in the GNG has different requirements depending on the subject, and for companies it's WP:ORGIND (my money is on the latter, though). So, you can't just simply try to by-pass the strict requirements of ORGIND by telling that the company meets the GNG. ~Styyx Talk ? 16:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete Fundraising announcements are routine coverage for any startup.    Also, Since this article was re-created by a user who knew it was deleted, and knew the deletion was endorsed at deletion review, maybe steps should be taken so that we don't have to do this again next month. ApLundell (talk) 04:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Clearly fails WP:NCORP as cogently argued by HighKing. Not seeing a strong policy based argument refuting this analysis.4meter4 (talk) 01:42, 21 June 2022 (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.