Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portkey Games


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 08:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Portkey Games

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete While the products this company is working on involves names like Niantic and Harry Potter, notability isn't inherited. The included references are either based on company announcements or based on quotations and interviews. None of the references are intellectually independent and all fail the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 18:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Keep regardless of what the articles that talk in depth about the subject are talking about, they are mentioned in depth by independent reliable sources. Many news sites covered the opening of the company, as well as the partnership with Niantic, and Warner Brothers. Clearly using those press releases would be non-independent, however sites such as Polygon, IGN and PC Games all present articles about the company. They also have numerous sources refering to them announcing games for platforms. If notability from sources referring to a company, and it's products are always exclusive to one topic, it would be incredibly difficult for any company to be notable, however, we have many thriving articles that exist.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Seems to have sufficient coverage in reliable third party sources.★Trekker (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge to Harry_Potter: I think that this will likely be a notable subject soon enough, and I think that it should be allowed to be recreated in the near future without prejudice. I think the sources are currently just extremely thin, and it would be better for it to be at the top of the Games section in the Harry Potter series article. Nomader (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. They haven't released any games at this time, they are like a band that hasn't released a song, or footballer who hasn't played professionally, there is just too much of a crystal ball at play. New companies like this are rarely notable. I usually go with the references but this isn't significant coverage - it looks like references are being gamed... Szzuk (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - Much as I dislike voting to keep an article on a developer that, as Szzuk pointed out, has yet to produce a single published game, the sourcing does meet the minimum for keeping this article. Looking over the first 12 sources, four of them (the Higgypop, Hardcoregamer, IGN UK, and Venture Beat articles) qualify as significant coverage from independent sources. Even if the developer never ends up amounting to anything, it will still meet notability standards as a company that the media thought would be significant, much like some cancelled video games meet notability standards.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:38, 5 February 2018 (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.