Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coin-Op Interactive

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. Fails WP:CORP. Black Kite 23:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coin-Op Interactive

Article has failed to provide verifiable secondary sources to establish notability set forth in WP:CORP. MuZemike (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Reliable sources needed. Stifle (talk) 19:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reliable sources and notable media coverage: Chamber of Commerce, Business location, and media here, here, here, here, here, here, several here. Eiersnijer (talk) 09:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC) — Eiersnijer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Kotaku may be the only verifiable secondary source in the bunch, and that could be argued. For the rest, forums are not reliable sources (here), neither are blogs (here, here), neither are articles that mention nothing pertinent about the company itself (http://www.arcadetown.com/panic/game.asp here]), neither are sites which are inaccessible, provided there is no paper equivalent (this one). As far as the numerous non-English sources are concerned, you need a translation of the site into English via Google translator or equivalent (this is the English Wikipedia, of course). Please re-read WP:V for what is generally considered reliable sources. MuZemike (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the fact that marketing of Rocket Riot hasn't started yet, notable media coverage is lacking. Gamespot, for example, also links to the Coin-Op site as official information source of Rocket Riot, just like Kotaku. A company such as Coin-Op which is specialized in concepts and prototypes is something unusual in the games industry, gamesites don't have appropriate spaces reserved for this kind of information. That is the reason why notable and conventional coverage isn't available. Eiersnijer (talk) 15:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our focus here is on Coin-Op Interactive the company, not Rocket Riot the game (That can be discussed another time), so let's keep on track. The fact is that if there are no verifiable secondary sources available in establishing notability of the company, then the article can be a candidate for deletion. Explaining why reliable sources cannot be found is not an excuse to keep the article. You could certainly transwiki the article to Wikia, which contains information that cannot be necessarily included here. MuZemike (talk) 15:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coin-Op Interactive the company will only be mentioned when Rocket Riot the game is in the news, your point is not a good argument. The information that is currently available about Coin-Op Interactive is true, verifiable and an undeniable addition to Wikipedia. It's sad to see that rules like these exclude the exceptions, as these exceptions are often the more interesting information one is searching for. Eiersnijer (talk) 05:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, they're not. MuZemike (talk) 15:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So the company's sole claim to noability is a game for which no significant coverage exist because it hasn't yet been released? Doctor, this sounds like a serious case of crystal balling. Montco (talk) 06:21, 20 August 2008 (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.