Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infamous Adventures

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. MBisanz ^talk 02:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infamous Adventures[edit]

The only independent references are from one source; Adventure Gamers site, and appear to be press releases, thus do not satisfy WP:N. Sources posted on the talk page are similarly press releases (and a YouTube clip which doesn't mention this company at all.) During a web search, I did turn up one possible source ([1]), not sure if this is sufficient on its own. Marasmusine (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Marasmusine (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability. Article needs substantial coverage from independent sources and there doesn't seem to be any. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The 1 source does show notability as it is from a reliable review site, as the work Space Quest II is notable.じんない 09:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My thinking is that it can be mentioned in a broader article, if this is the only significant coverage, per Wikipedia:N#cite_note-3. Marasmusine (talk) 10:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not perform a merge? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try that if the concensus is to keep this (verifiable portion of) information. I'm still leaning on this side of delete. Marasmusine (talk) 13:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable Sources:

http://www.joystiq.com/2006/06/19/kings-quest-iii-pimped-out-and-re-released/
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/news200606kingsquest3
http://digg.com/gaming_news/King_s_Quest_3_(the_remake)_has_been_released_\
http://uk.gamespot.com/pages/unions/read_article.php?topic_id=24729077&union_id=936
http://uk.gamespot.com/pages/company/index.php?company=80226P
http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/adventure/kingsquestiiitoheirishumanvga/index.html
http://www.imdb.com/company/co0186724/
http://www.gamefaqs.com/features/company/80226.html

If you require more than leave a message underneath.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by JMB1988 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking through the links now, let's see.

Joysiq.com -> Not significant coverage (press release)
Eurogamer -> to quote "And yes I did just rip that bit off Wikipedia..."; we can't reference a source that itself references us, or we get a walled garden.
Digg.com -> Not significant; merely links to the official website
uk.gamespot.com, imdb and gamefaqs -> "official press release", and basically empty directory entries; no significant coverage.

Thanks for searching for sources, but these aren't usable. Marasmusine (talk) 14:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Just to clarify, though the Eurogamer source can not be used to cite the content, I believe it still qualifies as a reliable source making note of a subject. Though the rest of sources don't build a strong case. I say weak keep because this is not a work of fiction, but a real-life company. Otherwise, I'd say delete. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:32, 12 January 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.