Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imagineering (software company)

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 no consensus. --Core des at 04:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imagineering (software company)[edit]

The article has been a one-liner since April 2005: Imagineering was a game development company located in Glen Rock, New Jersey with a defunct external link. Prod was contested, so hopefully this AfD can either establish notability (and expand the article) or decide the article needs to get deleted. I can't find anything among the 250-odd Google hits or 2 Newsbank listings. (Note: this is not Walt Disney Imagineering.) ~ trialsanderrors 01:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bizarrely, there's like 4 times more text about this company in Glen Rock, New Jersey#Trivia. According to their mobygames history[1], this company was active in 1986-91, and developed or ported about 24 minor games for mainly console/handheld platforms. I don't see any notable (encylopedically or not) original games on the list. Bwithh 01:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the MobyGames development list. It's obvious that they had a hand in a number of games, and there's no reason not to have this article here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable game developer --Steve 01:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doubt this article could be expanded more than the tiny stub it is. Definitely non-notable company. Jcam 03:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per badlydrawnjeff, on the condition that the article be rewritten/expanded. ςפקι Д Иτς ☺ ☻ 03:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. TJ Spyke 08:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep provided it can be expanded with sources, as it is probably borderline on meeting standards. Otherwise, delete. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 13:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, expand, source, and clean up.--TBCΦtalk? 15:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --164.107.92.120 16:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Kf4bdy ^talk ^contribs 16:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ozzykhan 17:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article can be expanded with the moby games reference; since it is mentioned in reliable 3rd party references (mobygames), it may be able to rise above the notability baseline. Individual reviews of many of their games can be found; they were wide release games, therefore notability can be extended to this article. If it doesn't already exist, a disambig should be availible to direct people towards the disney term. --Jayron32 19:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Uhm, did you click through on the mobygames link? ~ trialsanderrors 20:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply the mobygames link establishes that the company made real, notable products (games that themselves are notable). Therefore, we can use the individual reviews of the games in question to expand the article with real, reliable references. Thus, keep the article. --Jayron32 21:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I didn't log in, but mobygames looks like a wiki to me. ~ trialsanderrors 22:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep its a real company. I played their games Audiobooks 21:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Existence is not in dispute. JoshuaZ 07:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep since they are dead for a long time now and did not make that many games. To be honest the fact that they commited 2 Home Alone games should make them banned ;) -- lucasbfr ^talk 23:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I dunno, Bart vs the Space Mutants was pretty bad... --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is not "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works" as required by WP:CORP, and there's zero content in the Mobygames link as of right now. Sandstein 06:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sanstein. I'm willing to change that if someone can find evidence this fulfills WP:CORP. JoshuaZ 07:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Sandstein and JoshuaZ.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 19:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A1: Delete otherwise: there is no article here to consider. Close your Google tab: we are considering this article, not this company. Is this article discursive in any way? Is there any context at all, other than geographic? Is there any significance attributed by the article? If the answer to all of that is "no," then this is an A1. If your Google tab has hits in it all the same, that merely tells you that an article is possible, and, if you overwrote and created an article now, it might get consideration. "Jiminy is a cricket in a movie" is not an article: it's a fact. Geogre 02:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep. I don't think anyone disputes that the article should be expanded if it is to be kept. But we shouldn't delete substubs for encyclopedic subjects with potential for expansion. IMO their publishing record confers enough notability to make them encyclopedic. — brighterorange (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand per the immediately above. pfahlstrom 20:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreation if somebody actually finds something enyclopedic to say about this company. The article is pretty much context free and has been for over a year; the external link provided is empty. --kingboyk 20:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep mostly per brighterorange who makes a very convincing argument. Yamaguchi先生 05:21, 4 November 2006
- With respect, I disagree. Nobody's saying a new article can't be created if new info comes to light. --kingboyk 13:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. Note that the Mobygames reference is just a blank entry in their database. Alternately, recreate as an article about the Japanese game developer by the same name, which seems to actually have some released products. --Alan Au 09:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could creatse several such "articles". Pavel Vozenilek 17:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As expanded, the article deserves retention based on the scope of games the company had produced. Nintendo allowed games to be produced by a very limited number of vendors. Alansohn 02:25, 6 November 2006 (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.