Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Playgendary


 * 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 draftify to Draft:Playgendary. The draft should not be restored to the mainspace until the sourcing and tone of the article is improved. —&#8239; The Earwig (talk) 01:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Playgendary

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:NCORP, all citations are from tabloid or otherwise unreliable sources. In addition, while not a criterion for deletion, the page has been edited by paid editors Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1050 and is completely written like an advertisement. ✨ Ed  talk!  ✨ 23:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ✨ Ed   talk!  ✨ 23:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ✨ Ed   talk!  ✨ 23:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ✨ Ed   talk!  ✨ 23:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Draftify per nom. To say that "all citations are from tabloid or otherwise unreliable sources" is a bit off because at least Pocket Gamer and GamesIndustry.biz are recognised as reliable sources. However, what is available in reliable sources (some not cited in the article include: ) is WP:RUNOFTHEMILL at best. I wouldn't be surprised if the company was covered in domestic (Belarusian or Cypriot) media, but I so far failed to find anything close to significant coverage. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 12:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Changed from delete to draftify per the below discussion. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 15:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Draftify I agree that the article is written like an ad, though that doesn't have much impact on whether the subject is notable. And yes, most of the coverage, even in reliable sources, isn't much more than run of the mill content. I have found this article from a Belorussian newspaper which discusses the phenomenon of hyper-casual games in the country with reference to Playgendary. While they have a quote from the company's CEO, I think the article overall amounts to significant and independent coverage. Together with the first Pocket Gamer piece, we might have enough coverage to say WP:NCORP is met. Overall, I suspect that there will be more coverage in the Belorussian media since the company seems to be quite prominent in the country's gaming industry. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * In addition to the above, I've also found this from the same newspaper and this from a Belorussian website, though there is some overlap between these two.  might these three help the subject towards WP:NCORP? Modussiccandi (talk) 12:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the ping. Unfortunately, these sources don't convince me. All three briefly discuss the contemporary popularity of some of the company's games; the latter two appear to be about the same App Annie ranking. WP:RUNOFTHEMILL likely still applies as well. From what I can see, we do not have enough information in reliable sources to write a decent (even if short) article about the company itself, rather than a bunch of its games. The raw number of reliable citations where the company is mentioned (currently 7) is ultimately irrelevant. Do you think it would be wise to aim for draft incubation first, potentially allowing the discovery of sources outside the AfD process? IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 15:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I would not at all be opposed to moving this to draft. The company seems significant enough to generate the coverage required, but even I agree that currently its notability is borderline at most. Perhaps it's simply too soon for them, which makes me think draftifying could be a good idea. We could both change or !votes to draftify if you want. Modussiccandi (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. I changed my !vote. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 15:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gobonobo  + c 12:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Draftify to WP:PRESERVE. This article might be able to be re written with more independent sources to avoid it having a promotional nature. Archrogue (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Draftify as WP:ATD. Sources fail NCORP.  HighKing++ 14:09, 1 March 2021 (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.