Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nitrome

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 keep. Consensus is that the article needs cleanup, not deletion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nitrome[edit]

[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)

Page itself fails WP:OR, WP:GNG, WP:SPS (most of their sources especially the website, like the blogs), and WP:NCORP. These sources are mostly unreliable, and some of them are reliable which does not count notability. Chompy Ace 06:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Chompy Ace 06:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Chompy Ace 06:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Chompy Ace 06:32, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:NEXIST, massive reliable source, Gamasutra interview, Gamasutra source, other reliable source_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Zxcvbnm, the PG.biz and Gamasutra sources are all interviews, so they wouldn't count towards notability. Techraptor is unreliable per WP:VG/RS. I need to check deeper but a shallow search does not justify GNG. IceWelder [✉] 18:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @IceWelder: As far as I can tell they are partially interviews and have some commentary about the studio, too. Anyway, if people disagree with me then I won't try to argue further, but personally I feel the studio is probably notable, although the sources in the article now are all primary. The fact that nom "did not find any reliable source" shows that a WP:BEFORE was probably not performed correctly, which casts doubt on the rationale._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'll be looking into it later. Definitely, though, the article needs some WP:TNT. IceWelder [✉] 19:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - The interview sources as presented in their specific publications are secondary in nature for this purpose. Yes, we have to be careful about businesses and interviews being used for COI-pushing, but these are clearly interviews that the RSes have conducted and indicated the secondary nature of these works (the source leading the questioning). --Masem (t) 17:10, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found more non-trivial coverage of it in GameSpy [1] and in a book [2] (although there is a lot of quotation about what the Nitrome's founder said). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ZXCVBNM. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 03:26, 31 December 2020 (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.