Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phoenix Games (2nd nomination)

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. Only one editor argued for keeping the article, and that editor did not support their argument. Cerebellum (talk) 04:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Games[edit]

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

As per the rationale on the talk page, the most that we could gather about the company is from internet memes, anecdotes on blogs about the publisher's games being of dubious quality and the like. So far Phoenix's shoestring business model has led to them being all but ignored by the mainstream gaming press like Kotaku or IGN - unless if they take a gander at the games, and if the said articles receive a lot of attention, I'd say we should have this one deleted for now. Blake Gripling (talk) 08:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the one mentioned from the talk page, I'm copying my response here for posterity:
I don't think this topic meets the general notability guideline. These are the best sources I was able to find: [1][2]—both cover the company but don't have nearly enough to write a full article about the company. There are also passing mentions in: [3][4][5] and some product announcements: [6][7][8]. The quick synopsis of the previous links is that the company is known for shovelware and is briefly lambasted for it in listicles, and the name also shows in some press release-y product announcements for games that do not have enough coverage for even their own sections in a parent article. I wanted to check if anyone had additional sourcing before I take this to AfD. czar ♔ 14:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

There were no responses until now. czar ♔ 20:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Missed this link from the previous AfD: [9]. Still don't think it's enough—the srcs are mainly to disparage the dev and give little to no info to base an encyclopedia article. czar ♔ 09:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources from Game Asylum via Know Your Meme. Not sure if RS because it does say it is under Blogs. [10] [11] Also Joystiq source from last AfD. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 03:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And @Czar: the Fung Wan Online one (your 8th link) is about a completely different company, maybe from Chengdu according to Baidu Baike (not RS). 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 03:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KYM is indeed unreliable (user-submitted), and I'm almost entirely sure that my link 8 is Phoenix. I believe they had a Malaysian branch, and this would be it. czar ♔ 03:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This company, although obscure, has earned some notoriety. BrayLockBoy (talk) 14:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to have to back up what you say for it to be taken into consideration. Please explain how it meets Wikipedia's standards for having a stand alone article. Sergecross73 msg me 16:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless if major gaming websites take notice of the company or the memes that spawned from their games (see Final Fantasy VII for the Famicom), this would indeed, as one editor put it, be mired in obscurity. Phoenix skimped on marketing their games, hence why most news sites were practically unaware or turned a blind eye on them. Blake Gripling (talk) 23:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only reason I created one of the company's video games, Animal Soccer World, was because I thought it had enough sources to meet the GNG guidelines. Not the company that made this game. And although Animal Soccer World was merged into this article, I still believe this company fails the GNG guidelines. good888 (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2014 (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) 15:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC) [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 01:41, 20 October 2014 (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.