Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kixeye

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. It comes down to adequate sources being found on the retention side versus the failure of those sources to meet the adequate notability requirements on the deletion side. After three weeks of discussion, neither side has been able to achieve any consensus here. –MuZemike 06:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kixeye

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

Not notable. Only 6 hits on Google News, all press releases. All citations are to wikis, facebook or primary sources. Only secondary sources are two technology blogs whose reliablility I'm not too convinced on. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, move and redirect as per Talk:Kixeye The company changed names so an editor created a copy instead of doing move with redirect --DeVerm (talk) 03:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I'm not sure anymore what is happening with the move(s). I see log entries as of July 24 which is today?! Anyway, references 1, 6 and 9 look okay to me so I am changing to Keep. These guys made enough games to have become notable. The references to Facebook are to their Facebook-games, not some obscure Facebook source. --DeVerm (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- They're still primary sources. Having a large repertoire means nothing without secondary sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Primary sources? Techcrunch article written by Leena Rao, genuine journalist and paidcontent.co.uk article written by Patrick Smith, also genuine journalist. Both have their bio linked from the articles. I think these two sources are secondary and they seem reliable to me also --DeVerm (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 06:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 06:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. (As DeVerm). ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 20:27, 16 July 2011 (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) 18:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The deletion and page move discussed on Talk:Kixeye has already occurred. ctzmsc3|talk 01:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Relisted to allow for discussion about the actual grounds for deletion. The "move" opinions above are mistaken, as Casual Collective has already been moved to Kixeye. Sandstein 07:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The company does not appear to meet the WP:Company notability requirements. Although there a over a dozen citations in the article, virtually all are to blogs, internal company-produced material, or press releases. Absent independent 3rd party sources, it should be deleted. The "move" discussion above is confusing, but apparently the company goes by two names: Kixeye and Casual Collective , and the latter is a redirect to the former. Regardless, they should both be deleted, unless more sources are presented. --Noleander (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete; I don't like the idea of an article not existing for a video game company while at least one of its games has one, but this company really doesn't seem to be very notable at all. I've seen many games, companies, books, bands, people, etc. with many thousands of Google hits but no Wikipedia article. Tezero (talk) 04:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The company has clearly established itself as notable and has developed multiple popular games. Drawing conclusions regarding its notably on "Google hits" is foolish and unfair. Dylan2448 (talk) 21:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's additional coverage [1] in Techcrunch besides the stuff cited here. But, I'm concerned that they read like thinly veiled PR pieces. ~~Not a single genuine product review for a gaming company?~~ FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Desktop Tower Defense has more references, about half of which cover the company rather than the game. FuFoFuEd (talk) 23:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC) And they have WSJ coverage [2], which not something the average videogame gets. FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the common-sense basis that a company which has developed notable games is notable DGG ( talk ) 18:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIGNUMBER and WP:ITSNOTABLE. Yeah, real solid arguments there. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 03:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks the significant coverage in reliable third party sources to meet either WP:GNG or WP:CORP. The argument that it is notable because it has notable products is one of Notability is inherited. Mtking^(edits) 04:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you disputing the significant coverage brought forward above? --DeVerm (talk) 19:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

(edit conflict)You surely didn't take a close look at the articles:

Etc. Of course it's normal that journalists introduce article topics by relating it to something that the reader already knows about. But those articles are primarily about the new company, not their previous products. Clearly you misunderstand NOTINHERITED, Mtking. FuFoFuEd (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the company has significant coverage in the last section of this Gamasutra article. FuFoFuEd (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And they have about as much coverage as Second Life has in PC World's Social Gaming Guide. FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are enough references here. In fact, I'm going to add some now. -- $Σ talk contribs$ 03:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Recently raised $18M in venture capital, have a number of games with millions of active players: 5 August 2011

Google News Search
Washington Post: Social Game Developer Kixeye Raises $18 Million, Adds Zynga Co-founder Andrew Trader To Its Board
Wall Street Journal: More Funding for Hardcore Facebook Games — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capncleaver (talk • contribs)

Note: The WaPo piece is simply a syndication of one of the Techcrunch articles already mentioned in this discussion, but the WSJ piece was hitherto not mentioned. FuFoFuEd (talk) 22:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Business page press releases announcing that financing has been sought and granted are routine coverage that does not constitute significant coverage to support a claim of notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but those articles do not meet Wikipedia's definition of routine coverage, which you link to. By your standard, which is not (or no longer) included in the guidelines, any product review is routine coverage, because product reviews commonly appear in magazines, therefore no book/software/whatever that has it's WP notablity based on that is valid. Your POV was rejected at WP:NBOOK recently. And the articles discussed about this company are not even routine product reviews, but unique journalistic pieces. FuFoFuEd (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2011 (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.

dont delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.78.115 (talk) 21:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]