Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/93 Made 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 delete. Some well-reasoned reluctance to the deletion has been expressed, but the consensus at this point is reasonably strong and well-founded in the notability guideline. It is possible that the company, should it continue to develop, will eventually become the subject of more significant and independent coverage, and at that point recreation may be considered. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

93 Made Games[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company. Miracle Pen (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More independent references have been added to improve chances for complying with notability guidelines. Also reworded article to try to improve encyclopedic value. Frustrum (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unremarkable company, borderline advertising. Google search on "93 Made Games" shows only 62 unique returns - little significant coverage from independent reliable sources. As to the "independent references" recently added, one was to a blog, three were to primary sources (main site and Facebook), and one was to a page with no mention of 93 Made Games. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It might, at the moment, be unremarkable to Americans but I thought the idea of a global electronic-based encyclopedia is to catalogue all history of all countries (including Australia); not just the history which is convenient or deemed valid by a select few. In any case, you can't be serious about remarkability seeing as most of Wikipedia entries have little relevance outside of the US and Europe and if you were to remove all "unremarkable" entries then Wikipedia would be about half of its current size. I can't see how this article is advertorial either. There is no sales pitch and its not like what is written is particularly flattering. All it does is detail the history of the young company and refer to its key products; just like all of the other games publisher entries do. In saying all of this, I don't want to get into a personal flame war and if you honestly, truly, weally, weally have nothing better to do with your time than whinge about this page then give it a burl. Now there's an Australian term that you won't find on Wikipedia! Frustrum (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)— Frustrum (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Alrighty, mighty... Invalid Mega Games reference removed. Non-blog references and their context added. Hopefully this is getting better but I would appreciate someone identifying the specific areas that need attention instead of just saying that the article is "written like an advertisement". Also, a Google search on "93 Made Games" is hardly comprehensive. People used to get their facts from books once upon a time. ;-) Frustrum (talk) 09:56, 01 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While the Australian market is relatively small, my understanding is that this is the only company in Australia designing and producing such games in Australia. As such, it has a real significance for Australian readers. While the article is positive about the company, it does not advocate purchase of products or services. Furthermore, the previous rewording has (in my view) made it even less advertising-like and it is now much more encyclopedia-consistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyc5113 (talk • contribs) 09:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC) — Andyc511 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. when they release some games commercially that get sales and real coverage in real independent sources they might be notable. Might. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - The company has released two games that it sells commercially. Its games are sold in over 50 stores in Australia and New Zealand (where the market is obviously smaller when compared with US and EU) and it has also sold and exhibited these games overseas. @Stuartyeates - I think you should get your facts checked before you make comments on subjects for which you obviously have no knowledge. Regarding independent sources, what would you class as an independent source of information on a card/board game designer/publisher? Frustrum (talk) 12:30, 04 September 2011 (UTC)— Frustrum (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
weak delete it seems darn likely this company is notable, but no sources provided are independent reliable sources and I can't find anything. Hobit (talk) 03:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, it appears that outside of "a lack of independent reliable sources", there has been no valid justification that this company is not notable, no valid justification that the article is written as an advertisement and no valid justification that the article should be deleted. Even if the AfD discussion isn't yet resolved, I think it'd be reasonable to remove the tags that refer to the article being an advertisement or the company being non-notable. With respect to what a lack of independent reliable sources means, I reviewed the Wikipedia policy and found that it isn't particularly appropriate for game design/publishing companies. For example, there aren't likely to be a whole raft of scholarly articles on games companies. Furthermore, the card/board game industry isn't a subject that gets a lot of interest from generic media outlets. Both of these points are particularly pertinent to Australian games companies. Therefore, the two most obvious paths to resolve this AfD would be to amend the Wikipedia verifiability policy to include this class of information or establish a ban on all Australian game design/publishing companies from being included on Wikipedia. The latter option is obviously meant as tongue-in-cheek but I hope it gets my point across. Lastly, I can't see how the entry for 93 Made Games (minimum of 6 unique sources and their context), which has been marked for AfD is any worse than the entry for Crown and Andrews, a very well-known Australian game manufacturer (only 1 source where that source is the company's own website), which has not been marked for AfD. Both companies could add a whole lot more sources but most of these would be from web-stores and I would have thought that approach would definitely be classed as advertising. Does anyone know what the protocol is here? Frustrum (talk) 05:55, 05 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, this is a running problem. Certain areas just don't see the coverage in independent reliable sources that others do. I'd prefer we _had_ articles like this, but what we've done is draw a line in the sand about what we do have articles on. And that line is WP:N and in this case the subject-specific guideline WP:CORP. There is a long running argument about Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia (yes, that topic does meet WP:N). WP:N is what we've largely settled on though both camps tend to accept that WP:N isn't always ideal. So some topics get covered with poor reliable sources (Plinko comes to mind, though that too is up for deletion) and others that do meet WP:N get deleted (I think Michelle Obama's arms was an article at one point, plenty of coverage believe it or not, but nothing anyone felt we really needed an article on. Do keep in mind that press releases aren't acceptable as reliable sources, but specialized coverage is. So Games magazine or any of it's smaller cousins reviewing your games or commenting on the company would count. Hobit (talk) 14:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - To be clear, the problem is that you have listings (government and game cons), press releases, a blog, and facebook as the sources. It is a pretty well-written article, it just doesn't meet the sourcing requirements that have been set as the bar for inclusion. If the blog is somehow well known in the gaming industry that might count. But the rest don't. I'd urge you to do two things A) wait until the sources needed appear and B) get involved more broadly in Wikipedia. I've found that people tend to grow more deletionist over time (I started as a rabid inclusionist and now only lean that way). Hobit (talk) 14:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you for your cogent argument. It was very constructive. I understand the fine balance between including all and sundry and only including the most valid historical information. I suppose it all comes down to common sense. The article on Michelle Obama's arms is a great example of what should definitely not be included, even though it referenced many independent sources. As for games companies, it can be a bit tougher as there are many out there and some are obviously more "significant" than others (regardless of information sources). i.e. They've been around for decades, have games published all around the globe and/or are part of multibillion dollar conglomerates. The key factor to consider in 93 Made Games' significance is a little less obvious and is that it is virtually a unique entity in the Australian games industry. It is my understanding, from years of research, that it is the only company in Australia that provides near-full turnkey game solutions - design, development, artwork and graphic design, prototyping, play-testing, publishing, marketing and distribution. The only thing that the company outsources is the physical manufacturing. I haven't included this information in the article as I think it would have been considered advertorial but maybe that assumption is incorrect. And, moreover, there is no justification of these claims apart from what is on the company's website and what I know of the Australian games industry. When it comes to independent sources, Australia just isn't that kind of place to report on things like this. More and more, the Australia print, TV and radio media is becoming a bastion for paid comments and sponsored articles; it's a real pity. But I digress. Where I see this article going from here is: a) retain article (perhaps with additional information and/or a stub notice), b) delete article with/without prejudice, c) add details to a new article on the Australian games industry (once again, independent sources are scarce but could be collated over time with some help), d) submit the article for inclusion under the Wikipedia Australia project and Wikipedia games project (just like the Crown and Andrews article), or e) merge with another relevant article. Thanks again for your comments. I will also endeavour to become more involved in the other aspects of Wikipedia. I look forward to seeing what decision the reviewer comes up with. Frustrum (talk) 02:09, 06 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.