Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gamewright 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 keep. Some Weak Keeps but they are still editors advocating Keeping this article, based in large part on improvements by Guinness323 since the article was nominated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gamewright Games

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG, with the only source being the company's website. Was previously soft deleted, but was undeleted with no changes since being made. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 01:08, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Business. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 01:08, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Little has changed since my original nomination, WP:NCORP is still failed per my WP:BEFORE. VickKiang (talk) 01:15, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I will point out that User:Rul Joules did request at WP:REFUND to have this soft deleted page restored to become a redirect, although they did not specify where they wanted this page to be redirected to, so it was simply restored as an article instead. BOZ (talk) 13:13, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A notable children's game company that has published over 200 titles in the past thirty years, several of them notable enough to have their own articles. I have added more details and sources to demonstrate notability. The company has won dozens of awards, I have listed only the five Mensa Select Awards. Guinness323 (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your substantial improvements, though I'm unsure if the coverage is adequate for WP:CORPDEPTH, e.g., this is very brief with just quotes and a couple of mentions. I also can't open ref 3 and 5- perhaps just an issue with my browser? Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 23:17, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot open sources 3 or 5 either, and I am unconfident that any of the sources qualify for notability. Source 1, although I cannot be sure, sounds like a possible SIGCOV fail. Sources 2 and 4 definitely fail SIGCOV and source 6 and 7 seem like promotional content. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 23:57, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here is reference 5. [1] Timur9008 (talk) 20:34, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements by Guinness323. BOZ (talk) 23:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. VickKiang (talk) 02:04, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep Probably doesn't meet NCORP's higher standards, but does meet WP:N. [2] (yes, that's a Youtube video, but it's one by the most notable board game reviewer and it's focused solely on Gamewright and it's games). [3] is another one of the top game (and other thing) reviewers with an article focused on the company. Yes, both are focused on the products of the company, but A) both discuss the company and B) they are focused solely on the company. Hobit (talk) 00:57, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reference 2 is someone who wrote in Wired, so they might be a subject-matter-expert. But I disagree, even by WP:GNG standards, it's WP:SIGCOV. Like you said it primarily focuses on products, but each time they actually discuss the company it's extremely trivial, i.e., Look who turned 20 this year! Gamewright publishes a whole bunch of family-friendly games... Here’s a quick look at their latest titles (first command F hit), was Gamewright’s very first game, and for the anniversary they’ve made an extra-large version with all-new artwork (second mention), Happy Birthday, Gamewright! Thanks for twenty years of great games, and best wishes for the next twenty as well! The rest are purely product-related details as far as I can tell. So I disagree that it's SIGCOV. Secondly, IMO The Dice Tower is marginally reliable (as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games/Sources), besides, it's a 6 minutes long listicle that IMHO isn't WP:SIGCOV. Of course, this is just my opinion, many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 01:56, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sources are thin, but sufficient to meet WP:GNG. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 06:27, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after the substantial reworking. VF (talk) 10:19, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 14:39, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sourcing found and it looks like there is significant coverage in newspapers found via newspapers.com: [4], [5], [6], [7] as a sample, there are more, so I believe meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Skynxnex (talk) 14:44, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep with the sourcing given, I think it's just enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:55, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep HeliosSunGod (talk) 16:32, 29 December 2022 (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.