Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zombie Cow Studios


 * 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. Discussion to redirect/merge should continue on the article's talk page. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 13:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Zombie Cow Studios

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

contested prod, lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources RadioFan (talk) 11:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Seems to be enough reliable source coverage to warrant an article:   . --Odie5533 (talk) 12:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - a very minor point, but sources 1 and 2 are the exact same article. I'm not voting one way or the other, just saying that it seems odd to use the same article on a sister site as another reliable source. --Teancum (talk) 11:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * At least both attribute the same source, Phill Cameron. #3 is a press release; #4 is not significant coverage, so we need something more. Marasmusine (talk) 12:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources that Odie5533 listed whilst I was still looking around. Whilst they are not the most brilliant sources in the world, they still seem to qualify as secondary sources for WP:ORG, and the fact some products of this company have been well recieved by the industry (see metacritic), that hints at notability. --Taelus (talk) 12:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm still not convinced that this article may meet notability guidelines. It is not clear how notable those sources are.  Hinting at notability isn't the same as "significant coverage" in 3rd party reliable sources as required by notability guidelines.--RadioFan (talk) 03:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to and list at List of indie game developers, citing the Gamasutra inverview. With one item of significant coverage, I'd suggest going with N. Dan Marshall has given several other interviews at sites I've never heard of before, so can't vouch for their reliability. Other hits are largely press releases. Marasmusine (talk) 13:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Seconded - Not enough coverage for their own article, but enough to be put in the list. --Teancum (talk) 15:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed: I actually did not know we had an extensive list just for things just like this! Perfect. It would solve the problem of the article being in a frustrating gray area; It'd be hard to argue a company that has releases on major download services and have metascores based on a good number of reviews should be deleted, but in its current form it's just a short fact sheet and no real content. Redirect is a creative solution, as we lack solid secondary sources for a full article.


 * Comment this merge sounds like a good idea.--RadioFan (talk) 12:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment A redirect sounds like a good idea to me RadioFan (talk) 20:03, 22 October 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.