Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wildlife (video game 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 draftify. (non-admin closure) EggRoll97 ^(talk) 08:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wildlife (video game company)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Advertisement of a company. lack of independent reliable references. Jack-in-USA (talk) 13:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jack-in-USA (talk) 13:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jack-in-USA (talk) 13:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Jack-in-USA (talk) 13:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I have an issue if this is WP:PROMO or not. –Cupper52^Discuss! 13:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please provide examples on an independent source and depend on the source in this article page that is not suitable? Seeing other article pages related to the same topic; I don't see an issue. However, if you provide the examples I'll adjust them and replace the reference. Law of Royale (talk) 13:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Note that this AFD was started by a now-blocked sock of some previous troublemaker. I won't remove this AFD, because another editor has said "weak delete", but (a) future commenters should say something besides "per nom" or similar, because nominator's opinion is going to be discounted by closing admin, and (b) @Cupper52:, do you want to review your comment to make sure you agree? Not saying you're wrong, but it's worth a second look on your part. If you withdraw your weak delete, I'll speedy close. if not, I'll leave it open. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify; there is some routine coverage that could amount to significant coverage in total, but the article is poorly written and heavily uses primary sources that should be eradicated. IceWelder [✉] 21:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- »heavily uses primary sources that should be eradicated« should be better now.Law of Royale (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Law of Royale, there are still a lot of unreliable references, such as the various "alternatives" sites, Crunchbase (which is heavily user-authored), questionable data aggregators like AppFollow, Sensor Tower, and Apptopia; and so on. I would recommend checking the references against the list at WP:VG/RS. Furthermore, please disclose your conflict of interest (see WP:DCOI). I still advocate for draftspace incubation as this allows for a thorough content review outside the AfD process. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 08:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you 🙇 I'll see how I can exchange these. My main thought was to reference the publication date w/o linking to the app store or play store—at least these that refer purely for the verification of the dates. I'm myself active in various gaming communities, as a veteran community member (meaning I play their games, use their community channels, contribute to their community channels in various ways) such as Tencent (including Supercell) and Wildlife, however, I'm not affiliated with either, whenever with a contract or with an agreement nor do these companies requested/know/discussed with them, I just thought it would be a good time to create information that's accessible for everyone without a long-time investment. Law of Royale (talk) 10:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify seeing as how there's an editor working on it. The applicable guideline is WP:NCORP which is a little stricter than vanilla GNG when it comes to looking at references and deciding which references may be used to establish notability. My first comment is that the article is WP:REFBOMBed - it doesn't need 46 references especially when multiple references are used to support some trivial detail such as raising investment. What is required to establish notability are references that provide in-depth information *on the company*. Not the products/games but the company. These references must contain "Independent Content" (see WP:ORGIND) so we're not looking for "echo chamber" articles which rely on company announcements or interviews or content producted by the company. Instead we need original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. As it is, I can't find any references that meet the criteria but perhaps Law of Royale will have better luck. HighKing⁺⁺ 22:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I see, I'll try to reduce the said reference aspects and remove the reference for the products, efficient time investment help ^^. About the independent reference part; I'll try to seek and comment here if I'm able to provide (or not) it before the decision. But since I have googled and duckduckgoed for three hours already (as a whole for the 'invalid' independent references), I'm afraid I have to agree to you, however, we will see. Law of Royale (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unfortunately, there are no such researches or analysis. I saw a webpage listing some legal information regards one of their subsidiaries and another page about legal information about Wildlife despite being both in Portuguese that I don't speak, I wouldn't have an understanding of how to reuse the 'case' listings here since I don't have a clue how relevant it is due to the information not being available in English. Law of Royale (talk) 00:42, 16 February 2021 (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.