Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genius Factor 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   speedy keep. I'm withdrawing my nomination, but please add those sources.  DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Genius Factor Games

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

As none of its games are notable, I don't see how the company has any notability either.  DGG ( talk ) 08:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

As the author, the company has been around for a significant period of time, has received decent press in the industry (on its releases and the company) although not yet cited (I'm didn't include as I interpreted those as "advertising" (perhaps incorrectly). The company and its titles are on par with other iOS developers who have been listed in Wikipedia for some time, and seem to have met the notable requirement.  Specific examples include (I'm sure I can find many others):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appy_Entertainment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monica_(mobile_application) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Toys http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild_Software http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreshGames

Everything included in the article is factual, verifiable, and I believe genuinely notable (specifically Gravity Well (product) and Riese. I am still very new to how Wikipedia works (so please excuse my ignorance on process), is there something specific I can do offer further proofs of notability?  --Frontalnugity (talk) 10:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It may seem like a reasonable objection, but the fact that similar articles exist is one of the arguments to avoid. It'd be better to focus on finding independent reliable sources. There's a couple of useful Google News results, but I'm not sure that's enough to satisfy the general notability guidelines. Do you have access to any offline sources (newspapers, etc)? DoctorKubla (talk) 11:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow-up, and from reading the general guide lines, still believe in earnest that it is notable. Although not the primary argument for notability, I do believe in the interest of fairness that similar articles is still a valid factor in consideration. More specifically though, the company (and President) been cited multiple times in print, newspaper, magazines and other online sources in regards to discussion and opinion on the industry. Specifically (and in addition to the 2 references you noted) the following are independent sources that appeared prominently in print, and can be seen online as well:

,, , , (BC Medical Journal), , ,, , , plus many product reviews not listed for reasons I mentioned above.

Should these (if accepted as "notable") be included as cited links in the article? --Frontalnugity (talk) 06:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Good enough for me. I've added a couple of them to the article. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2012 (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.