Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GolemLabs


 * 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. The consensus is that the subject fails to meet Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion as no coverage in reliable sources can be found. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

GolemLabs

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

This article sounds like it was written as an advertisement. It cites one reference, which is the company's homepage. Apparently, GolemLabs hasn't even produced a game since 2004, and have only produced two games since the inception of the company in 2000. GolemLabs is clearly not notable and its article should be deleted. Worldruler20 (talk) 05:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC) 
 * Oh, and I just noticed that the company's homepage hasn't been updated since 2007, including the copyright notice at the bottom. Worldruler20 (talk) 09:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MLauba (talk) 09:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as advertising for a seemingly-inactive company. The ad was an epic failure. Alexius08 (talk) 14:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Good information about the developers of a well known game SuperPower 2. Can be improved if necessary but I find it useful. Peer-LAN (talk) 13:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - The article largely described forum-based speculation and fan opinion, which I have removed per WP:V along with the spammy content. Still, the company does not seem to have attracted any attention from the gaming press (no Google News hits; only press releases and token directory entries on IGN, GameSpy etc) and our coverage should reflect that. Marasmusine (talk) 15:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as failing WP:V due to lack of independent coverage - only self-written company profiles to be found. MLauba (talk) 10:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Useful is not a reason to keep. Lacks independent coverage. Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete nothing here in indicate any verifiability, though I'd question (at least in regard to the current version) whether or not it's written as an advertisement. MuZemike 20:05, 1 May 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.