Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free League Publishing


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Owen&times; &#9742;  19:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Free League Publishing

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

Fails WP:NCORP, article is a list games published. Maybe a List of Free League Publishing would be applicable? IgelRM (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Sweden. IgelRM (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Games,  and Companies.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  20:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep Converting what amounts to a list of a publisher's notable games, many of which have won awards, into a list of games by that same publisher is process wonkery for process wonkery's sake. Seriously, if you can change the name (but not the content) of the article and it will be acceptable, then our notability guidelines--or at least the current interpretations thereof--are wrong. There's plenty of coverage here for the company's products, and this is not an advertisement, so I am just fine with the GNG criteria applying, regardless of what NCORP says. GNG or SNG merit inclusion, and this is one of the more clear examples of why trying to make NCORP a super-SNG would give us unencyclopedic results. Jclemens (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep There's actually policy basis for Jclemens' point, and it's the part of WP:NPRODUCT that says "In cases where a company is mainly known for a single series of products or services, it is usually better to cover the company and its products/services in the same article. This article can be the name of the company or the name of its product". ~ A412  talk! 20:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * And I'll preempt any commentary of "but that says "single series"!" by pointing out that a subject being able to become less notable by releasing more notable products would be an absurd policy interpretation. ~ A412  talk! 20:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I remember seeing the list format used for List of Rayark games. Although I would think a category virtually have the same value, I notice people feel strongly about this (I guess Ignore all rules anyway?) IgelRM (talk) 00:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. I added a couple of sentences and two Swedish references which talked a little bit more about the company as such rather than just individual titles. /Julle (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep tabletop rpgs, boardgames, licensed videogame, Simon Stålenhag etc. with coverage. Draken Bowser (talk) 11:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: I agree with Jclemens that the idea of turning this into a list page is a lateral move with no benefit to the encyclopedia. Toughpigs (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jclemens. Solution in search of a problem. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. Dissent: how does this meet WP:NCORP? Some of its products are notable, but WP:NOTINHERITED. Where is the WP:SIGCOV about the company? Where are its awards, articles about it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Regarding dissenting, discussions here are not closed by democracy. This Bleeding Cool article details the history a bit, but I am also struggling with SIGCOV for the company. IgelRM (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've added a couple of Swedish articles and a reference to a book where the founding of the company is described. /Julle (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I had noticed, but it depending on how strict SIGCOV (from what I saw on a recent AFD e.g. in depth article solely about company history) is interpreted. IgelRM (talk) 01:28, 9 March 2024 (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.