Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dire Wolf Digital

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. Sandstein 10:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dire Wolf Digital[edit]

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

Just a WP:MILL company with nothing indicating notability. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edited article to be more reflective of 5 pillars, including:

deleted descriptions that were not "neutrally voiced"
Added a history section with 5 citations for more notability/information on the organization, versus just a list format of game offerings.
Updated image per Zackmann08 request

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eschneider1 (talk • contribs)

Delete - The vast majority of coverage on the studio was when they opened, but it fails WP:SUSTAINED. Most of the other articles mentioning them are predominantly about Elder Scrolls Legends, not the studio itself. WP:NOTINHERITED applies here._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:02, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG. Ongoing coverage of the studio's work and its relation to that work constitutes sustained coverage. For example this provides both non-trivial coverage of the studio and of the game it is producing. The coverage of the game does not detract from the coverage of the studio. Winner 42 Talk to me! 04:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a WP:PRIMARY rather than a secondary source. Those can be used in an article but are not evidence of notability on their own._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - The interview itself is primary but the information surrounding it is secondary. Besides, for the purpose of WP:SUSTAINED common sense dictates that interviews would be evidence that the subject has attracted attention over a significant period of time. This, combined with the other earlier significant third party coverage satisfies the notability criteria. Winner 42 Talk to me! 14:33, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's not how it works. The reference is entirely based on an interview with Dire Wolf Digital and therefore fails since it is a PRIMARY source. It contains no independent analysis or opinion on the company. The reference fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References are not intellectually independent or relating to their productions and not to the company itself. References fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Notability is not inherited. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- promotionalism only and significant RS coverage not found. Sourcing fails WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see any sources, in the article or elsewhere, that would confer notability. It's all the same usual marketing churn and stuff not strictly about the company itself. Reyk _YO! 06:22, 28 October 2017 (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.