Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PlayGen


 * 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.  Sandstein  07:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

PlayGen

 * – (View AfD (View log  •  AfD statistics)

This article is likely a result of paid editing: see my post at COIN. As such wouldn't be here if it weren't for some unethical dealings behind the scenes. The subject of the article also fails our general notability guideline as well as WP:ORG as the subject hasn't recieved significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Of the 23 sources listed, all but one do not pass WP:RS as they either come directly from the company's website or they are press releases.  Them From  Space  04:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - a single article in Business Week only proves it has some notability - but note that one article is not enough for WP. Bearian (talk) 21:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Piece on FloodSim at Sky.com - heavy on quotes, lacking in analysis though. Piece on SeriousPolicy at The Inquirer (originally from the Daily Mail, so all depends on if you think tabloids are reliable sources). Piece on the Nano... games at Business Week. To me, they all smack of re-worded press releases, but objectively speaking they might contribute towards notability. Marasmusine (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The references/links are rehashed press releases, and there is nothing substantive in the article. When the promotional text ("have garnered a very positive response", "attracted the attention of high-profile scientific groups", and more) is removed, all that would be left is the promotional list of products. Johnuniq (talk) 22:51, 16 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.