Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boomzap Entertainment

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. While there are few comments, I see consensus to keep this. (non-admin closure) Pmlineditor ∞ 09:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boomzap Entertainment

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

Doesn't appear to meet notability requirements Eeekster (talk) 10:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - this seems to be just as notable as any of a dozen other casual game studios on Wiki - and has more shipped games than most.

Disagree as well - Boomzap's a very well known game company in Southeast Asia, I will be attaching links to talks at various game conferences as citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabusch (talk • contribs) 10:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, thought I already removed the "biased" POV? Seems like a legit article to me. Disagree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosepedia (talk • contribs) 10:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This one actually appears to be notable to me, based on the references. Maybe I'm wrong? JBsupreme (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Someone another 00:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – looks like the sources indicate notability here. Could use some cleanup, though. –MuZemike 19:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 05:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - although the article cites a number of sources written by Boomzap themselves, the Gamasutra interview is sufficiently independent and significant to qualify for the WP:GNG. Marasmusine (talk) 14:47, 16 January 2010 (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.