Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GameMill 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 delete. Whether a game list article (of four games?) could be created is a separate issue. This discussion is about an article about the company, and there's no real argument being made here to keep that.  Sandstein  23:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

GameMill Entertainment

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article is a stub, the company does not reach notability guidelines. Constant edit disputes over the company's history in biased edits from company owner Tim Flaherty lead to no progress, wherefore it should be deleted to resolve the edit war. Article should be recreated if the company ever reaches notability. Lordtobi ( &#9993; ) 15:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 10:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 10:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 10:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak Keep or move to List of GameMill Entertainment games. Although the company doesn't receive coverage, their creative works do, some which pass GNG and some which would exist best in a List article.--Odie5533 (talk) 14:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Of their creative works, one, Cartoon Network: Battle Crashers, only hardly manages to reach GNG, while other two, Water Sports (video game) and Frozen: Olaf's Quest, have been listed at AfD as well, where the first is completely unsourced, and the latter half-based on one source, and else unsourced as well. Only Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing has a semi-proper article and semi-good coverage to keep it as an article. So considering that #2 and #3 could potentially be deleted, you would have List of GameMill Entertainment games, which includes two items, or three if you wish #3 to be included with the one source provided in the article. From my POV, your proposal does not really make sense. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 14:41, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The List would include all their games, notable and not. They've developed and published more than just those 4. Some of others are notable, most probably aren't, but they'd all work well in a List. It would give the non-notable, slightly notable, and edge cases like Water Sports a home as I think the best place for them is a List. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:03, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * My concern would be that we don't usually have "List of X" articles where "X" doesn't have its own article. I think it would be like having a List of Halo 6 characters before being able to establish Halo 6 as notable. I think we'd find ourselves right back at AFD if we did that... Sergecross73   msg me  15:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a rather interesting case. Normally, I'd expect to keep a company article and use it to store reviews of its games if, say, one game is notable, but several are not. But in this case there is little about both the company and the games. Without prejudice to separate AfDs, none of its four games appear notable. All lack multiple, significant reviews. The Frozen and Cartoon Network games should be covered in their parent list/articles. Water Sports lacks coverage altogether. And that leaves Big Rigs, which has few reliable reviews and is known primarily for being the butt of jokes. With only reviews from GameSpot and G4, and little extra news commentary, I'd delete that one too (or perhaps try to redirect it to an article on games with exceptionally poor reception?) So that leaves the company itself, which has no independent coverage in reliable sources. (Here, have some press releases for shovelware:. Nope, no presumption of notability here. czar  07:13, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * We do have such a list, but I haven't figured out the inclusion criteria for it. --Izno (talk) 10:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If you mean List of video games notable for negative reception, that's a discussion for its talk page or WT:VG, but Big Rigs is already discussed there so nothing would be lost in turning the current Big Rigs article to a redirect. Don't see a list for GameMill. czar  17:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Move To List of GameMill Entertainment games. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 18:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No rationale? Please consider what Czar stated on the listing issue just above. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 18:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Amongst other things, Big Rigs cant just be redirected to the mentioned list mentioned by said user because that list require entries to have articles, and it seems that many of the games produced by this company are getting kept on afd. I think if atleast 2 or 3 are notable, all their games can reasonably listed in an article. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As of right now, the company has four games with articles, of which two are undergoing AfD, one of which is strong delete, and the other just a weak keep, but neither reaches GNG, really. Apparently, you are referencing "the mentioned list mentioned by said user"; Does that have any relevance here?; Should I know about it? Considering that you would see Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing redirected here, or to the to-be created list, only one game with an ok-article would remain, again rendering that list notability-less and resulting in a new AfD. Makes no sense, really. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 19:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Frozen: Olaf's Quest definitely meets GNG. --Odie5533 (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And "meeting" the GNG (read: having sources) doesn't mean that we create separate articles. The Frozen game, as the Big Rigs game, can be adequately covered in existing sections. There still isn't cause for a separate company article, nevertheless a "list" article (which would technically be a split from the company article). czar  19:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - per Czar's rationale, I would say merge to a list, but we really don't have lists where the target subject isn't notable in their own right.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:12, 2 January 2017 (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.