Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ifun4all

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 DELETE. postdlf (talk) 04:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ifun4all[edit]

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

Young company, indie game developer which has produced just a few games. Doesn't show enough media coverage. Not notable IMHO. Removed earlier as IFun4all, also removed from Polish Wikipedia for lack of notability: [1]. Sir Lothar (talk) 07:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article is based on the same couple of press releases published at Develop-online, IGN and Gamasutra, and a handful of app review sites that do not pass WP:RS. Nothing compelling turned up at the VG Google search, or Google News/Books. Marasmusine (talk) 21:26, 2 April 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, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 18:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but the article is in need of a major cleanup. The Gamasutra source and the multiple IGN sources are considered RSes, and PSX Extreme is listed at WP:VG/RS. The article as it stands certainly reads like an advertisement. Someone has also nominated it as violating NPOV (although I notice that this tag was improperly added as the tagging user failed to initiate any discussion in talk whatsoever). I also agree with Marasmusine that the article isn't very compelling right now but I think it passes WP:N. It just needs to be re-written and expanded. -Thibbs (talk) 15:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Gamasutra and IGN only list press releases; simple acknowledgment of a company's existence is not enough for an article here. As for the NPOV dispute, I would venture to say that it really needed no discussion, as the article reads like an ad. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what the advert tag is for. NPOV disputes require the existence of a dispute not just a general sense of unease in a random editor passing through. Anyway it's a moot point since it's so abundantly clear that the article needs to be re-written anyway. As for the notability issue, I think the sort of in-depth acknowledgment that comes from a republished press-release is sufficient to confer notability unless Gamasutra and IGN have a policy of republishing all press-releases that are submitted to them regardless of notability. I can't imagine that's their policy, is it? -Thibbs (talk) 04:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course it's not their policy. But "this company exists" enhances the article in absolutely no way. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only sources are press releases, which are not independent enough to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:19, 16 April 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.