Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAM Development

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 and redirect to 2K Sports. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PAM Development[edit]

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

No signs of notability, fails WP:GNG/WP:CORPDEPTH. Lordtobi (✉) 08:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Why can't it be merged/redirected to 2K Sports? Regards So Why 10:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The company was independent for 10 of its 13 years of lifetime, yet we have just about no information on it. The one-liner on the 2K Sports is not quite enough to justify a redirect, as the reader will find out practically nothing if they were sent there. Lordtobi (✉) 10:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they will learn that the company was later part of 2K Sports. If we delete the article without a redirect, they won't even learn that. So how is the latter preferable? Regards So Why 11:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Truly a good argument, but I think it should be cleansed of its history so it is not restored over and over by uninformed users (I'm often seeing this on redirect-AfD'd articles that some random users wish to keep against consensus and keep restoring post-closure). I think I'd not be opposed to re-redirecting it afterwards. Lordtobi (✉) 19:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Their products were notable to have their own pages and one was licensed from a major (if poor) film and the other licensed a highly popular football player, the company will have more than enough sources out there to sustain an article.217.43.203.61 (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:INHERIT, this is not a valid reason to keep the article. There are sources that say that the company developed a game, but there is no actual info about the company. We don't even know who the company was founded by, for example, or when it was bought by Gaia Capital Group (which it was at one point). Lordtobi (✉) 19:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - This outlined above is probably the best outcome. As it can't satisfy it's own article, and is later purchased by 2K sports, a redirect is preferable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to and/or merge with 2K Sports. That is most likely the best outcome that could arise as it can't stand on its own. As for deleting and then redirecting, would just semi-protecting (or higher) the redirect suffice? That would (at minimum, depending on level) prevent IP and new editors from reverting it. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:53, 9 April 2018 (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.