Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exient entertainment


 * 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 no consensus, default to keep. Neıl ☎  10:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Exient entertainment

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Prod was contested. It's a non-notable company without proofs of reliable sources. I suspect the list of developed games are fake. Okay, I saw references but they are still failed to conform with WP:N. Dekisugi (talk) 11:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Dekisugi,


 * Exient Entertainment are a legitimate UK based company, who have developed a number of titles for Electronic Arts over the last few years, we have recently been asked by them to build up their profile by ensuring that they receive the accreditation their work deserves.


 * Best Regards


 * David Bancroft
 * Peppermint P


 * www.peppermintp.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bant78 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - ... and do you have sources for that? Dekisugi (talk) 12:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course, you can contact Companies House in the UK to verify that they are legitimate business through publicly available information, 

Exient were previously known as LIVE MEDIA UK LIMITED from 1997 - 2001

Also in the recent review of FIFA Street 3 on IGN, Exient are actually mentioned in the review. "Nintendo DS developer Exient's usually rocks pretty well in its handheld games like Madden" SOURCE: http://uk.ds.ign.com/articles/855/855726p1.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bant78 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. If the purpose of the article is "to build up their profile by ensuring that they receive the accreditation their work deserves," then it is spam. Notable companies do not need to use Wikipedia to build their profiles. --Evb-wiki (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And if you were asked by the company to help build its profile, then you have a conflict of interest. --Evb-wiki (talk) 13:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. See http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Exient%22+award+site%3Apocketpcmag.com for some of the award nominations. --Eastmain (talk) 14:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I added some references, and think that notability has been established. However, I didn't find anything about the company on some news sites where I thought there might be something: http://www.thisisoxfordshire.co.uk/search/index.php (the Oxford Mail newspaper), The Guardian and Daily Telegraph. And the company's website appears to be a single page with contact information and not much else. I removed some NPOV text, and I think the article's style is now acceptable. --Eastmain (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions.   —Eastmain (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete a few of their games might be notable, but that doesn't make them notable. The only reference I see for the actual notability of the company is that they came 50th in a list of companies, but all that gets them is two trivial mentions; not the "significant coverage" required by WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 15:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm torn. The company has developed some well known games, has won some sort of awards, and is mentioned in several publications, which would suggest notability. But without articles with more depth on the company, what is the article going to be built on apart from the list of developed games and a small profile? I did manage to find this mention but it's still not much. However I am willing to give the article the benefit of the doubt and say keep. Bill (talk 00:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per this source on MCV citing the company's success, this one on GDN listing company details and this source from Spong, again verifying information. Admittedly, they haven't produced anything that has reached high critical acclaim, but that shouldn't be a barrier. What would help this article dramatically would be some sources such as developer interviews, company spotlight articles and so on. Gazimoff (talk) 07:48, 11 April 2008 (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.