Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HandyGames


 * 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. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica1000 03:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

HandyGames

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete: Article relies heavily on unverifiable sources of information as well as first party and self published information. The article also fails to establish WP:Notability and appears to be highly WP:Promotional. BlitzGreg (talk) 12:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 8.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 12:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep and clean up. The article is close to being a blatant promotion for the company at the moment. However, they've recently been profiled in-depth in Fränkische Nachrichten and their recent HandyGames Charity Day also receoved a write up in the Main Post. An article this week in Finanzen.ch profiles the company calling it the "industry-leading games developer and publisher". All this is in the last two weeks, so I fully expect there are enough decent, reliable news sources to create a useful Wikipedia profile. Sionk (talk) 13:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The current ones that you cleaned up are still just bare links though, 7-22, they are all just base links to the website, those are not even close to citations. BlitzGreg (talk) 13:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you're saying. I haven't cleaned-up the article (yet). Sionk (talk) 13:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * My apologies, if you check the edit log it was someone else, but the issue still remains. BlitzGreg (talk) 14:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The need for clean up, or bare urls versus complete citation templates, are not grounds for deletion though. -- ferret (talk) 23:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The proposal for deletion is the result of the content appearing at best highly WP:Promotional and also failing WP:GNG. BlitzGreg (talk) 00:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MrScorch6200  (talk &#124; ctrb) 01:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 11:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep the company and its games have received coverage in reliable independent sources. Awards. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Coverage in several RSes (e.g. IGN, GameIndustry.biz, etc.). Multiple third party RSes = meets GNG. -Thibbs (talk) 13:24, 3 March 2014 (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.