Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liberty 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 no consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty Games[edit]

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

Non-notable company, fails WP:CORP, does not have the required "significant coverage in reliable sources". ukexpat (talk) 14:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added information relating to recent inclusion in The Guardian a major English publication --- stukerr (talk) 14:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)— stukerr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — ukexpat (talk) 14:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article seems to barely squeak by WP:N. Two reviews from major UK publications (Daily Mail and Guardian) that were more than passing mentions is enough for me. -- Atama頭 19:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Guardian and Daily Mail articles don't do it for me. The DM article is borderline at best. It's not a trivial mention but it reads like they merely reprinted whatever promo materials (including that photo) Liberty Games supplied. There's not even a byline. The publication is certainly reliable, but I don't think this article is. It's impossible to tell if anyone associated with the DM even saw one in person. The Guardian mention is even less useful; it's only a mention on a top 10 list in a blog. Finally, neither of these articles is about Liberty Games; they're both about individual, different products made by Liberty Games, which is just not the same thing. (It's possible for a company to be notable but not its products and vice versa.) I don't think these sources meet WP:GNG, much less the slightly more stringent guidelines at WP:CORPDEPTH that kick in when a commercial interest is involved. Msnicki (talk) 00:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just a reminder that blogs attached to news outlets are often considered reliable sources per WP:USERG as long as they are written by journalists and given editorial review (which is the case with the Guardian's blog). -- Atama頭 16:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it's not just a blog entry, it's a blog entry that's not even about Liberty Games, nor even about the particular product from Liberty Games mentioned. I read it as more of a joke entry in a list, something the author put in there just to be colorful and clever and even a little outrageous, not to be taken seriously. It certainly wasn't an actual review and there was no indication he even saw or played with the thing himself. A serious blog entry actually about Liberty Games would be different; that's not what this was. Msnicki (talk) 16:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. The citations aren't great, and when I suggested this barely squeaks by with notability, I mean that it barely squeaks by. I had the same thoughts as you when judging the sources. Your reason for deletion is valid, I think I just have the bar a bit lower than you. :) -- Atama頭 23:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm delighted to see we're on exactly the same page on that point. I had even been thinking about adding a clarifying remark that I totally get why your !vote is that it squeaks by. That's a totally reasonable position. This is a case where a good argument can be made either way. Cheers! Msnicki (talk) 23:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Guardian and the Daily Mail are both big UK newspapers, and T3 is a notable magazine for the industry this company claims to be in. That together with many other articles showing up from independent sources such as [1] are enough to do it for me. -- Interstellarsheep (talk) 13:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)— Interstellarsheep (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Added information relating to Liberty Games's sponsorship of the British Foosball Association (BFA) --- stukerr (talk) 14:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)— stukerr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. The listing is of no value. It has been created by the companies Director and it just a list of things they do. The links are just poor quality press releases and not newsworthy. There is a commercial interest involved therefore this should be deleted. A list of links to press releases does not make this listing seem worthwhile. Sponsorship is paid for therefore this link has no value. Itsmee (talk) 17:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)— Kookieshell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please note user Kookieshell is a competitor of Liberty Games and so has a vested interest in having this article removed, and is not part of the neutral discussion of this topic. --- stukerr (talk) 12:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)— stukerr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep per Atama. It's borderline, but I think acceptable, and given the apparent existence of an SPA devoted to its destruction I'd hate to see the SPA get what it wants. —chaos5023 (talk) 05:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's a close call under the guidelines. But I think that's how we should decide it, not based on what the SPAs say about each other. Msnicki (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The user who created the article is the owner of the business for publicity/commercial gain and who only has a wikipedia account in order to do this, also interstellarsheep is a sockpuppet. Not a competitor FYI. Article is pointless and has no value. 88.210.167.73 (talk) 12:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)— 88.210.167.73 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Again the above comment is from the same competitor, please ignore as part of this process (as they seem to be the only people fundamentally disagreeing with keeping this article in place due to their lack of neutrality). --- stukerr (talk) 15:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)— stukerr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
~~Delete.~~ stukerr has only created a wiki editor account to promote his company. I think you'll find that is not neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.210.167.73 (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC) — 88.210.167.73 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Striking the duplicate WP:!VOTE. Msnicki (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having not read the article or sources myself, I am going to AGF on User:Msnicki's research. Coverage in reliable sources criterion is met, significant coverage does not appear to be met.--v/r - T P 21:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, insufficient in-depth coverage to establish notability. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fundamentally promotional in intent. Carrite (talk) 14:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete, significant enough as a large-scale company that does a great deal of business particularly in the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbpat21 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 13 July 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.