Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RedSpotGames (2nd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus. North America1000 08:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

RedSpotGames
AfDs for this article: 
 * Articles for deletion/Redspotgames
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotion for non notable company bombarded with primary sources and passing mentions. Company lacks coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The page has been nominated for deletion before and people voted in favor of keeping the article. I would state here that nominator Duffbeerforme has not read through the references properly as 1up, Kotaku, Gamespot, Joystiq, Wired and several other reputable sources have been cited which clearly establish notability as well as credibility. These are not primary nor are they mentioning the company in passing. This is a waste of my time, instead of working on improving articles, we are redundantly discussing a page that has been previously cleared.--Cube b3 (talk) 03:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's look at your claim that "The page has been nominated for deletion before and people voted in favor of keeping the article." Start with Articles for deletion/Redspotgames. "The result was delete." Then Articles for deletion/RedSpotGames. "The result was no consensus." Would you please stick with the truth in the future. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I just assumed since we had a previous discussion it was ruled in rsg's favour. My bad. However your claim of it being bombarded with primary references and passing mentions is also wrong.--Cube b3 (talk) 06:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. A video game publisher of notable games does not mean the publisher is notable. Of the sources listed, Wired, Engadget and GameSpot are reliable and notable. But this one and that one by Engadget are pretty much the same - hell, they were published a day apart. The GameSpot piece covers the same as Engadget. Wired's piece is different though. So out of 31 references, there are essentially two that are reliable. That does not meet WP:GNG and does not mean there should be an article on RedSpotGames. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Why only two are reliable?


 * Just because multiple references discuss the same thing? That reinforces the reference not discredit.
 * Because they were posted on a short window? That is because the company was interviewed at GamesCom. That's like discrediting movie articles stemming from ComicCon. That is when websites report on them.--Cube b3 (talk) 06:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it discredits the reference, I'm saying we need more than two websites reporting on the same event. You're comparing apples and oranges, but to go with your example: if ten websites say the exact same thing from a ComicCon panel, we wouldn't include that either. More importantly, I said that out of 31 references, two are reliable. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please, if you don't mind can you tell me why they are unreliable? I understand that only a few sources meet the list of approved references, but the other ones fit the situational references criteria. Also context matters, what are the references used for, I think within the context they are reliable.


 * I think more pressing concerns is that it isn't written really well and needs to be rewritten. If you'd like to help me become a better Wikipedian and write better, let's collaborate and rewrite it.
 * The second problem is that I have a close connection with it's subject. I personally don't see that as a problem as I feel I did not write a bias article. I acknowledged all their shortcomings. It isn't like I wrote an article hiding all the bad press, they have accumulated over the years.--Cube b3 (talk) 06:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * If the company has produced notable games, it will be notable. INHERIT is only an essay, and it has long been consensus that its reasoning does not apply to the relationship between creative works and their authors. There are several SNG to that effect. No comment yet on whether the games are notable. The article does not look like an advert to me. James500 (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * All their games are notable as they set the precedent of quality expected from indie games. Their last game Sturmwind won Classic Game Room's game of the year award.--Cube b3 (talk) 19:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "If the company has produced notable games, it will be notable." Not so. Several SNGs have such a relationship. WP:CORP does not. That relationship does not extend to everyone that works on the products. Jim Smith is notable if his book gets lots of major reviews, his publisher does not inherit that notability. Jane Doe is notable if her song tops the charts, her record company does not inherit that notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Good point, but videogame developers are not like authors. The publisher gets a larger share of the notability. When consumers go to Game Convention and GamesCom and they see Redspotgames booth there with everyone wearing Redspotgames T-Shirts they association is greater, do you understand what I am trying to say?

Look at this news post here: I found another one here from a reliable video game source. They are simply talking about a redesign of their website. Why would they do that if they thought the publisher was not notable?--Cube b3 (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC) --Cube b3 (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * http://segabits.com/blog/2010/08/11/dreamcast-indie-dev-expanding-showing-a-game-at-gamescon/
 * http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/redspotgames-website-revamped-online-home-for-publisher-of--among-other-things--dreamcast-revival-release-last-hope
 * Here is another example. When Sturmwind was revealed nationally on German television it was the publisher who was invited to the set and the bulk of the segment was spent on just discussing the publisher.


 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-XRNuVFKiE
 * http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/sturmwind-trailer-released-for-dreamcast-shooter

Also when consumers items were not shipped in a timely manner, or their orders arrived broken. It was the publisher that was criticized:
 * http://www.dreamcast-scene.com/news/sturmwind-sold-out/--Cube b3 (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * http://www.thedreamcastjunkyard.co.uk/2013/05/sturmwind-where-are-you.html

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 19:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment The previous Afd has a fairly good discussion as well. More people participated here are some more references I found through the talk:
 * Keep I found the following secondary sources which help establish this topic's notability.
 * Game Informer - Dreamcast Not Dead – New Release Set For 2010
 * Wired - New Dreamcast Games Coming This Spring
 * GamePro - New Dreamcast Title in 2009
 * GameSpot - GC 2008: They Are Still Making Dreamcast Games
 * Engadget - Redspotgames has plans for further Dreamcast development
 * 1Up - Rush Rush Rally Racing Coming to Sega Dreamcast
 * Computer and Video Games - Dreamcast releases still planned into 2011
 * TGDaily - German developer is reviving the Dreamcast
 * Gamesradar - German TV show reveals a new Dreamcast game
 * Computer and Video Games - New Dreamcast game revealed
 * Kotaku - On German TV, They've Unveiled A New Dreamcast Game Note: Kotaku is listed as "situational" at WP:WikiProject Video games/Sources depending on the author of the article. In this case, Stephen Totilo is a published author on video games.
 * Game Set Watch - Sturmwind: First Trailer For New Dreamcast Euroshmup Note: Listed as reliable at WP:WikiProject Video games/Sources.
 * Game Set Watch - Sturmwind: New Shoot'em Up Announced For Dreamcast
 * GameSpot - GC 2008: They Are Still Making Dreamcast Games
 * A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cube b3 (talk • contribs)
 * the proceeding !vote was posted by Cube b3, not by A Quest For Knowledge. It's the same bombardment of sub standard sources that already exists in the article. Nothin new here. Just a bunch of passing mentions, pr rehashes and non reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I wrote above it that I just found it from the previous AfD and thought I share it.--Cube b3 (talk) 02:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have combed through almost all references in the article. I seem to be having problem with the dates or something. Could you have a look and see what is wrong? Also while you are doing that could you read the references that have errors. You will notice they are reliable, notable and not passing.--Cube b3 (talk) 04:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You've further [[WP:BOMBARD|bombarded] it with more substandard references. Passing mentions, PR rehashes.
 * On the dates, that was mostly Zero-padding. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC) Comment On 17th I spent a lot of time on the article. I tried revising my grammar, make the article read better and I went through the previous AfD found some notable references there and added a few in. There are a ton more references that we can find using the custom Google search engine.Cube b3 (talk) 04:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We're discussing the publisher RedSpotGames, not their games. The sources you've provided are announcements of new games, with RedSpotGames as the publisher, and that's it. That does not make it a notable company. There's no in-depth information to be found, no analysis, interviews or something. The fact that they're publishing and distributing notable games, does not make them automatically notable. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It was the publisher that received an endorsement from Sega of Germany on GamesCom 13 years ago. 5 years ago Sega of America formally endorsed them live on Destructoid. How is that not notable?
 * Simply take notice of the fact that redspotgames was unlicensed, yet they still received an endorsment by the company.
 * I would say Redspotgames is more notable than other Dreamcast publishers such as Conspiracy Entertainment, [[D3 Publisher, Success (company), Xicat Interactive just to list a few examples. I can go through the Dreamcast publisher pages and find this one much more notable.
 * I also just added a reference of the time they sponsored several Formula BMW events and made Lassi Halminen there spokesperson.--Cube b3 (talk) 04:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Cube, I think you should consider stepping back fro a while until you take some time to understand what makes something notable. An "endorsement" from a business and sponsoring an event do not help. The have a read of Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, specifically about Othercrapexists, a poor argument you keep pulling out. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep for now as the current article seems convincingly informative and sourced. SwisterTwister   talk  22:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And speaking of Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, this one is basically It looks good. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:32, 26 March 2016 (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.