Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roxley

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. T. Canens (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roxley[edit]

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

An unremarkable board game publishing company going about its business. Significant RS coverage could not be found. One source listed refers to a Kickstarter campaign which suggests that it's WP:TOOSOON for this company to be included in the encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any RS coverage, and very little unreliable coverage, so it appears as though the company's not well known anywhere. Zupotachyon Ping me (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep Santorini is likely notable (plenty of reviews, some in reliable sources) and the game is reasonably highly ranked at boardgamegeek. Super-motherload has less in the way of sources (but still some) and is similarly ranked. Dicetower did an interview with the company ([1]). None of that is hugely convincing, but between the source in the article and the rest, it's borderline IMO. Hobit (talk) 10:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:36, 22 January 2017 (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.