Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wyrd (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. It has been correctly highlighted that many of the references look like fan sites, which are more often than not unreliable, but assessing the reliability of sources is a matter of editorial judgment, and there's no consensus here that the sourcing is insufficient. Sandstein 09:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wyrd (company)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. This article has been tagged for over a year as requiring some independent sources. The company and its products undoubtedly exist, as multiple fansites, blogs and ebay listings confirm on a quick Google search. However I could find no reliable material from independent sources and indeed the article does not assert that the subject meets the WP:GNG criteria. There does appear to be a relaxed standard on WP for games and their publishers; very few articles in this area are adequately written or sourced. This article is no worse than many in that respect but WP:OSE can't be a reason to keep. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 00:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Speedy delete This should be speedied immediately. Its notability seems to be well below-par, and the article is pure spam that has been copied off the internet (I cannot be certain which site, but there are quite a few of them). Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 01:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, unless copyvio. Sources I found:

review of Malifaux Lazarus at Brueckenkopf
six minute video interview with Eric Johns of Wyrd at GenCon2102
Tabletop Gaming news has about 34 articles on Wyrd

The first source is independent of Wyrd and marginally in-depth. In so far as a gaming news portal is is considered reliable, it looks reliable. The second source is indepth and playunplugged.com, while enthusiastic, seems independent of Wyrd. The third source is independent of Wyrd and like Brueckenkopf, looks reliable. Most of the articles on the site Tabletop Gaming news are short, but in total could be considered sustained, in depth coverage of Wyrd and its products. It looks like there are multiple reliable sources that would indicate the topic is notable. The article does have problems with a non-neutral point of view, but those are surmountable problems (see WP:SURMOUNTABLE for details) and the topic notability would indicate keeping the article. If Ohconfucius's assertion that the article is a copyright violation is true, however, then the article should be deleted, per WP:COPYVIO. Mark viking (talk) 06:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:COMPANY. I'm not seeing a wide range of reliable and independent publications that cover the company in depth. In fact, the company appears to be quite small; according to their own company website's about us, it leads off with "Wyrd Miniatures, LLC is a small, privately held, Atlanta-based company producing entertainment and hobby materials.". On the same page, Wyrd lists 4 staff members. Google News Archive is largely inconclusive for any sources other than trivial mentions, and Google Books is even more void. Mkdw ^talk 07:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep I'm not at all certain about the reliability of the sources, but they look acceptable and enough to meet the GNG. If there is a copyright problem, that's another issue. As far as I can tell, size of company doesn't play a role in our inclusion guidelines (but I don't normally work in that area, so I'm happy to be corrected if there is some written or unwritten rule there). Hobit (talk) 13:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article needs to be rewritten (and I will likely end up doing it), but Malifaux (by Wyrd) is now common among tabletop skirmish games such as Warhammer 40K, and Warmachine/Hordes. Games Workshop, Privateer Press, and Wyrd are the big 3 Tabletop Skermish game companies. This event calendar shows the big 3 (including Malifaux) scheduled every week. http://www.hatsgames.com/ This article is (currently) similar to most descriptions of Malifaux like this following website. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/TabletopGame/Malifaux?from=Main.Malifaux This is because the authors are summarizing the same material from the first Malifaux rulebook. To me the primary problem with the article is WP:PRIMARY. Although Wyrd has only a few employees (they have more than 4 now), they do have people referred to as Henchmen who do in-store demonstrations at game stores, organize events, etc. The Henchmen are not employees, but do get some sort of company credit to buy stuff with. Wyrd's website mentions the Henchman Program. Secondary Sources: There are Podcasts, Blogs, and Battle Reports on YouTube. The only secondary source the article has now (which does not cite anything) is http://pullmyfinger.wikispaces.com.

Wyrd had two successfully-funded Kickstarter projects, Through the Breach http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1334239018/through-the-breach-a-malifaux-roleplaying-game, and Evil Baby Orphanage http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1334239018/evil-baby-orphanage-0. AGProductionsInc did some reviews of Malifaux models as well. http://agpminis.com/ also refers to these videos. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_660LeqMPFk&playnext=1&list=PL9E7054F8CECDDFE7&feature=results_video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sm_Wyi3jrvE&playnext=1&list=PL9E7054F8CECDDFE7&feature=results_video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOwF81OI3Sk&playnext=1&list=PL9E7054F8CECDDFE7&feature=results_video Dakka Dakka was somehow involved in a Malifaux model painting competition. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/494754.page http://gamerslounge.coda.net/ -- Podcasts on Malifaux, Warhammer 40K, and misc other stuff. http://theaethervox.com/ -- Podcasts, seems to focus only on Malifaux. http://www.belloflostsouls.net/ -- Reviews of Malifaux, Warhammer 40K. http://cheatedfatesradio.blogspot.com/ -- Another Podcast sight. http://www.cheatedfatesradio.podbean.com/ -- Related to the link above. (Anonymous User) 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Summary: My position is that Wyrd (via Malifaux) is big enough in the Tabletop Gaming community to warrant a Wikipedia article, but the current one should be rewritten. I am not a Wyrd employee, and am not a Wyrd Henchmen.--MrNybbles (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands, the article is mainly about Malifaux, not Wyrd Miniatures as a company. It would be more natural to have an article under the name Malifaux, with Wyrd Miniatures and Wyrd (company) redirecting to it. I suspect that people are more interested in reading and writing about Malifaux. 24.24.214.15 (talk) 08:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 11:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Malifaux and incorporate a little information about the company (and the existing article only has a little) into an article about the game. This is what i meant in my previous comment, but I didn't know that moving was possible when I wrote that. If you look at this discussion, a lot of it has been about Malifaux, the game.

I noticed that the company is really called Wyrd Miniatures so if this article survives, Wyrd Miniatures should be created as an article or redirect. 24.24.214.15 (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

24.24.214.15 (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm still seeing a lot of blogs, product pages, and run-of-the-mill board game coverage. Most of the coverage is about their products and not the company directly. These may be suitable sources for an article about their product. Mkdw ^talk 03:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Split I split the article, moving material related to the game Malifaux to a separate article and adding a redirect from Wyrd Miniatures. Reference to independent sources and more company history are added. Concerning the question of notability, it relates to the compartementalization of popular culture media coverage, making it neccesary to go to specialized miniature wargaming and modelling media. Furthermore, these kinds of companies are heavily outsourced, relying on work by freelancers. More references to media coverage is greatly appreciated. Oslomin (talk) 11:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 04:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A lot of community engagement I see. A deletion discussion is not solved through voting, a consensus may be reached, the subject lacks notability, voting may not change this fact. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 02:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has received major revision after the community engagement commented on above, now with references to articles from gaming- and plastic manufacturing media, which under the relaxed standard referred by Kim Dent-Brown could be argued to be in compliance with WP:GNG. Furthermore, the repeated Relisting could be an argument for a "no consensus" closure. Oslomin (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - just to be clear, I'm observing the apparent fact that a de facto lower standard of notability and sourcing seems in fact to exist in this area of WP. I'm NOT saying that I think this is OK or arguing that such a lower standard is a good thing. This will be a tricky one for the closing admin to call but if the final result is Keep or No consensus I think I'll have to take this de facto dual-standard for consideration elsewhere by the wider community. (Goodness knows where!) This won't be sour grapes, I just think such an unofficial departure from the usual standards needs wider discussion. I have nothing in particular against this article, and indeed maybe there's a case for different standards in different parts of WP. But I think this should be by explicit community agreement rather than by creeping caselaw. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 17:21, 25 February 2013 (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.