Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalypso Media


 * 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. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  16:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Kalypso Media

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Deprodded. I think this article, self-referenced to company's website, fails Notability (organizations). Pinging User:Hahnchen who deprodded it, disagreeing with this claim. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 23:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  00:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm certainly no expert on business notability, and I don't speak German.  But I think that the German Wikipedia has lots of sources establishing notability.  Also, some of the games published by these people are pretty popular, which I think isn't strictly relevant, but still.  Do they have to be English sources?   AgnosticAphid  talk 05:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * for instance, http://www.mediabiz.de/games/news/hellwig-und-marcinek-gruenden-kalypso-media/214593 appears to be third party coverage of the company's founding.  AgnosticAphid  talk 05:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful to get a German speaker here. As far as I can tell, they are not a developer, just a local (German) distributor. If I am wrong, the article needs to be clear on this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think there might be some problems with these sources, but there's also this and this.  AgnosticAphid  talk 22:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Also this. AgnosticAphid  talk 22:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Last one. AgnosticAphid  talk 22:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but they don't look very mainstream/reliable or good for much. The company exists, yes, but I still am not seeing how it passes Notability (organizations). Would you mind explaining this to me? Quote the applicable policy, and point me to the parts of the article that satisfy it - would you be so kind? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The sources that I cited are third party sources that contain coverage of the article subject that is not trivial within the meaning of the notability guideline you cite. "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources....The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[1] independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability....Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as:sources that simply report meeting times, shopping hours or event schedules, the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories, inclusion in lists of similar organizations,[2] the season schedule or final score from sporting events, routine communiqués announcing such matters as the hiring or departure of personnel, brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business, simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed, or discontinued, routine notices of facility openings or closings (e.g., closure for a holiday or the end of the regular season), routine notices of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops, routine restaurant reviews, quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources, or passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization."  I don't believe that any of the sources I cited suffer from any of those triviality problems.  Would you mind explaining to me why you think that the sources I cited are not WP:RS?  Quote the applicable policy, and point me to the parts of the sources that render them unreliable – would you be so kind?  AgnosticAphid  talk 04:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)  Further, as I noted below, there is no requirement that these sources be cited in the article for the article to survive deletion (see WP:NRV).   AgnosticAphid  talk 04:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that the cited sources are minor gaming and/or marketing sites whose coverage is not mainstream and mostly trivial. moddb is more serious, but the entry there is still rather tiny and of less than perfect reliablity (who added it there?). If you want to argue otherwise, please explain to me in detail what makes the said websites non-trivial. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buffbills7701 00:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

 Keep if properly cited per WP:BURDEN. If no one is willing to do the cites, then change to Delete. Will meet WP:GNG if cited. VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Per WP:NRV, "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article.  Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation."   AgnosticAphid  talk 22:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Article has been marked as needing citation for 11 months. I believe that is enough time to give an article to meet WP:V. Failing WP:V for nearly a year is reason enough to remove all uncited material which would leave the article with one short sentence. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Selective Merge to List of video game publishers. Kalypso media is an obviously major video game publisher with many notable games having articles on WP. Which is why it is puzzling that it is so hard to find independent reliable sources for the company itself. The German WP article has a number of sources, but they don't look reliable to me. Perhaps it is a privately held company; such companies tend to generate less press coverage. Unfortunately without multiple in depth independent RS, this topic fails WP:GNG thresholds. Basic information about the publisher is verifiable in independent RS, e.g. the Kalypso listing at IGN, and per WP:PRESERVE, preservation of verifiable information is preferable to deletion. Hence, a selective merge of basic info into the list at List of video game publishers and redirect seems the best course of action. --Mark viking (talk) 04:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think the sources linked above and various mentions in news sources are enough to indicate notability. Readers are better served with a list of the notable products that Kalypso have developed/published rather than a redirect. - hahnch e n 16:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Given the very long list of games they've made that are themselves notable and have separate articles, if sourcing the one paragraph about the company fails (which I doubt if anyone puts serious effort in it), this can be turned into a List of Kalypso Media games, which would be quite ok per normal list notability standards. There is some press coverage about Kalypso's acquisitions and some interviews . A Google Books search indicates that there's GNG-type coverage about the company in the form of an interview (mostly about the company, e.g. how many employees they have etc.) in the German magazine GamesMarkt . Someone not using his real name (talk) 09:14, 24 January 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.