Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghostfire 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   keep. Overall there seems to be sufficient consensus that the company is notable. The article has been apparently cleaned up, as it no longer appears to be promotional in nature. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Ghostfire Games

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Short article on video game company of very questionable notability. COI by original page author is strongly suspected. Wuh Wuz  Dat  13:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: As I said in WP:UFAA, the games might be notable but the company itself isn't.  Pick both man lol  14:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep A quick Google search seems to bring up some decent coverage of the company.  TJ   Spyke   18:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

What is the possible conflict of interest when I am trying to provide matter of fact information about the company.

The company is the producer of a notable video game.

Also, it stands to reason that wikipedia users will click on "ghostfire games" from the other 2 links helix (video game) and Rage of the Gladiator and wonder why there is no wikipedia entry. I am in favor of inclusion.

I request other opinions on the validity and notability of the article. If the community of editors believes it is not notable, then I am not one to argue as I am new to wikipedia. However it does not logically make sense to me why this article would not be notable and should not be included for my reasons above. Thanks! GhostfireScott (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC) — GhostfireScott (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The Conflict of Interest is that you work for the company, and for that matter, have listed yourself as one of their "key people". Wuh  Wuz  Dat  17:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

That is true, I am a key person, but that is a matter of fact. If however this is a problem, I am not averse to removing my name, and have done so. GhostfireScott (talk) 17:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm going to attempt to answer your questions.


 * 1) A conflict of interest is assumed if you own or are employed by the company in question. It does not necessarily mean the information you are adding is bad, but tends to be a sign to other editors that you may tend to write material that is more promotional in nature than is appropriate for an encyclopedia article. People are generally discouraged, but are not banned, from writing about articles with whose subjects they have close connections.
 * 2) If there is no article on the subject, then the links in the articles about the video games will be red, and anyone familiar enough with Wikipedia style will recognize that means there is not an article about the company. Alternatively, the links could be removed. If the conclusion of this discussion is that the article about the company should be deleted, then the links in the game articles probably should be removed. They do not in and of themselves mean an article should exist.
 * 3) To understand notability as used by Wikipedia, you should read the policy at WP:N. It is rather a jargon term here, with a specialized meaning. (Note that I am specifically not expressing an opinion on whether this subject meets our notability standards, just pointing you to the relevant policy.)
 * I hope all this helps. Lady  of  Shalott  18:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much.

I now understand the issue of conflict of interest, and have removed myself from the article in question.

Yes, if it is decided that the article should be deleted than it stands to reason the links to said article should be removed. However,

I have read WP:N as WuhWuzDat was kind enough to initially direct me to, and am of opinion that the subject of said article has received significant coverage in reliable sources. However it is up to you folks to decide that, not me :) GhostfireScott (talk) 18:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * We very much would appreciate additional sources to confirm Wikipedia-Notability, more than a pair of directory listings and three articles that don't mention the company in question at all. Nifboy (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I will do my best to procure additional sources. GhostfireScott (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I have been able to come up with two more sites: http://www.jigsaw.com/id2733383/ghostfire_games_company.xhtml and http://sites.google.com/site/austingamecompanies/ GhostfireScott (talk) 19:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, both of those links show only the existence of the company (which is not in dispute), and do nothing to help prove notability. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  19:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, however for the moment this may be the best I can come up with you may have to make your decision based on the current evidence. Thank you for your time. GhostfireScott (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep For a non-notable company, they sure are giving a lot of interviews: Interview with CEO, interview with CEO, interview with CEO, interview with CEO, interview with someone, interview with CEO. SharkD   Talk  04:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. It's notable (agreeing with the two keeps above).  IShadowed  ✰  07:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Seems somewhat notable. 'Company History' section seems like pointless self-promotion. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 09:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per findings by SharkD above. MuZemike 17:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete as the article does not contain any significant coverage about the company, let alone any verifable evidence that it might be notable in any way. Given its overwhealmingly prompotional focus on the company's CEO and his book, clearly this article is a candidate for speedy deletion as it is pure spam. The press releases highlighted by SharkD are not evidence of notability for the same reason, as they are just promotional. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:55, 2 December 2009 (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.