Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sledgehammer 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 merge to Activision. Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 05:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sledgehammer Games

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

No indication of notability as of yet. In my prod (just removed), I suggested merging into Activision's page until more information is known. Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 19:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thejadefalcon - please advise on the criteria for notability. Apologies for removing your prod. I would like the page to remain so I may add further details, including a logo, which maybe you could help upload? --SledgeEdit (talk) 19:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)— SledgeEdit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: As I said in the prod and this nomination (and again so I can direct a Sledgehammer employee (whose e-mail I just recieved) here), the company exists, I'm not disputing that. However, as of this moment, there is next to no information on it. They have no current games and no information exists about what games they will make. In a few months, when there is more information about them and what makes them notable, then I fully support recreating this article. However, right now there is simply not enough information for them to have their own article. Information about them can be added to Activision's page until such time that it has enough information to warrant splitting off into a separate page. I hope that answers your question satisfactorily. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 20:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since the article was first proposed for deletion the amount of information has increased and merging it no longer seems practical. --SledgeEdit (talk) 07:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)— SledgeEdit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Oh great, looks like creating an account for the purpose of maintaining a page is called 'sock puppeting' - apologies again. --SledgeEdit (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC) — SledgeEdit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: In this case, it's more worry about a potential conflict of interest than a fear of sockpuppets. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 20:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. No notability established. Delete per WP:ORG. --ҚЯĀŽΨÇÉV13 20:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Polarpanda (talk) 20:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I'd have tagged it db-inc. No notability established. They may be industry veterans, but are they notable? And more important, is a company established in 2009 with no listed achievement to date. No prejudice as to re-creation when they've actually done something more than found the company. Peridon (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please delay deletion; company logo and more company details to be added shortly. Thejadefalcon stated that little is known about this company. This article is the place to give details about this new game studio.--SledgeEdit (talk) 02:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)— SledgeEdit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The issue is not that the company themselves can expand the page, it's that there are no, reliable, third party sources to back it up. --Teancum (talk) 15:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be plenty of coverage in the press. Kotaku, Kotaku, Edge Online, Joystiq, GameSpot, GameSpy, Gamasutra, gamesindustry.biz, Destructoid, GameGuru.in, USA Today, IGN. I swear no one even bothered to look! SharkD Talk 22:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Maybe it's in a ton of sources (a few of which I saw in my search), but none of them actually say what's notable about them. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 04:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To understand why there is so much press coverage (and why it is so notable), consider the context: the world's largest video game publisher starts a new development studio, taking leadership personnel from its arch rival - and locates it in rival's backyard. Though, admittedly, none of the sources explain it like this. --SledgeEdit (talk) 07:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)— SledgeEdit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep, judging from the amount of coverage quite a lot is known about it so merging is not necessary. Polarpanda (talk) 09:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I quote from the kotaku reference: "While there's not much meat to it yet—no game announcements buried within—job listings offer some clues to what Sledgehammer is working on. It's most likely going to be a shooter with online multiplayer—hey, just like Dead Space 2!—if you can possibly wrap your brain around that concept. Open job listings are looking for level designers with a "serious passion for shooters, console or PC" and online/multiplayer designers to do... online multiplayer design type stuff." (Dec 8th) How can they be notable when they're still hiring and no-one knows what they're doing? There's plenty of ghits saying that the company exists - but where's the ones saying they're notable? The founders may be -I'm not saying they ARE - but that doesn't necessarily make the company notable. "Plenty of coverage" is not the same as "plenty of reliable coverage". I get the feeling that a viral campaign is running to whet people's appetites, but that isn't what Wikipedia is for. If two people started a business that was still hiring, had no products and hadn't even announced what the heck they WERE going to produce, what would the article on them get? Peridon (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please consider WP:ORG: ( "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." ... "Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." " ) -- Which of the sources given by SharkD above do you consider unreliable? --76.14.51.208 (talk) 07:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now Neutral: I've been re-reading WP:ORG myself. Since, to my knowledge, I can't withdraw my nomination once someone else votes delete, I'll simply remain neutral now and not vote either way. I have, however, spruced up the article a bit. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 17:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. I'm not convinced anything compells notability out of the sources. Shadowjams (talk) 11:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Activision. Once the company released one title. It can have its own article. Until then merge would be a good idea not deletion. --SkyWalker (talk) 08:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will agree that there are quite a few references out there. But, so far as I can see, all they attest to is the existence of the company and the fact that no-one (outside the company - presumably those inside do) knows what they are doing or going to do. Existence is not notability. Merge it with the parent company if you will. All it's here for is advance publicity. In advance of what? Don't ask me... Peridon (talk) 17:03, 20 December 2009 (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.