Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PIXELearning Ltd


 * 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. EdJohnston (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

PIXELearning Ltd

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

In my opinion, this company does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete No notability, self-published sources as all references, appears to have been written to promote the company. Kittensandrainbows (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  13:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  13:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The sources are independent and not self-pub. This is Gamasutra's siter site (article advertised there ). The FT article has just a brief mention (and is incorrectly listed as being in The Economist, although a google news search indicates that a different article in The Economist may have a mention as well). There's some book coverage and some 40 citations in google scholar. Pcap  ping  13:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  13:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - no significant coverage in reliable, verifiable independent secondary sources (WP:COMPANY). Amsaim (talk) 13:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Pcap. Sources seem reasonable to me. Amsaim, could you address what you find to be the problem here? Hobit (talk) 15:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I declined a speedy - for unambiguous promotional-ness - but thought that the article should probably be deleted at AfD. However, Pcap's sources sway me towards keep: the first one, in seriousgamessource, looks reliable as far as I can make out and together with the book and Gscholar mentions adds up to notability in my mind. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Google news finds dozens of results mentioning the company. They must be doing some notable things.  D r e a m Focus  08:15, 7 March 2010 (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.