Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Art In 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 G5: created by a sock puppet. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Art In Games[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

References as given here lack independence from the subject; the last one, Metacritic, includes no actual coverage of this company. The generic format of the company name makes identifying actual news sources very difficult, but my Google News search didn't turn up anything obviously related to them. A loose necktie (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but this is evident that I wrote is rely to company's website, and I will delete the Metacritic sources. In addition, Moby Games described it as well. Nevertheless, if it is possible, I can add external links to strengthen the article. How Life Changed (talk) 16:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It needs secondary sourcing that shows notability, not more external links. Delete per nom. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can improve the article as much as possible and I'm seeking for the secondary sources. The company website description is similar to my writing depending on sources such as when was established, what type of company is it, it's locations and so. But these statements may clarify the article. How Life Changed (talk) 17:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification is not what is needed. Evidence of notability is what is needed. Evidence of having been the subject of multiple reliable sources that are INDEPENDENT of the subject are what this article needs to be retained. Please add them, if you can. A loose necktie (talk) 06:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found a few sources that are likely independent to the subject. I think the article generally consists of one primary source in reference area (the company's website) which is duplicated into multiple times, that makes it 'sufficient'. If it is necessary, I can remove them. It takes time and more analysis in Google Search. Please do not urge to delete the page, I encouraged to improve it. How Life Changed (talk) 15:09, 5 August 2019 (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.