Talk:Media Molecule

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Disputed Speedy Deletion

The article for the company Media Molecule is IMHO notable because it is:

1. A first party developer for Sony Playstation 3: there is a list in Wikipedia with 1st party developers on it, to be complete- this one should be included.
2. The company is founded by people with big names within the game industry.
3. The last Game Developers Conference, Media Molecule generated a lot of attention by their newly announced game LittleBigPlanet. This has a large portion of the game audience focused on this new company.
4. Many game industry resources mention Media Molecule (IGN Gamespot Gamesindustry.biz amongst others - which seems to be a requirement for notability).
5. It is referenced in other Wikipedia articles Special:Whatlinkshere/Media_Molecule(so there must be more interest in a Media Molecule article).

Felsir 12:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

While I would not put much weight on points 1,2 and 5, I accept the other two for removing the speedy tag. But media buzz and announcements alone may not be sufficient to keep it. --Tikiwont 12:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The game LittleBigPlanet has been acclaimed by many [1] as "the reason to buy PlayStation 3" and as such the sole developers of this software are not unremarkable. 82.41.251.79 14:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Notability for a company should not be confused with notability for a product it makes. That said, when there are articles for multiple titles, it seems to me that an argument could be made to keep a small article on the basis of navigational purposes. There is a temptation to add filler, though. A company with multiple notable titles is more likely to have substantive independent coverage that is focused on the company itself, but such coverage is not a given. I've notability-tagged the article in hopes that sources can be tracked down that show that a proper treatment of the subject is possible. Dancter 17:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Monkeystone Games (notability comparison)

Just wondering, does this compare to Monkeystone Games? I mean there weren't any legendary game titles from Monkeystone, it seems the company's notability draws from its' founder John Romero. So that article is only used as navigational hub for Hyperspace Delivery Boy!. Is it me or is the Media Molecule article as notable as the Monkeystone Games article? (I don't want to 'try to force' this Media Molecule into Wikipedia, but I want to understand how this company that gains worldwide attention fails to be notable.) Felsir 07:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually pretty optimistic that this article can pass the criteria, but I try to be objective in the way I treat the various articles I write on. My tagging should not be considered a "prelude to a deletion nomination". What I'm trying to say is that a certain character of coverage (which I'm referring to as "notability") is preferable to ensure the ability to appropriately cover a particular topic on Wikipedia, which I tend to favor strongly over Secondary notability criteria|secondary criteria for inclusion. All the sources I've seen so far focus on LittleBigPlanet, which actually doesn't do much to help expand this particular article.

As for Monkeystone Games, I wasn't aware of company or any of its games, and I haven't attempted any research, so I really couldn't say either way. It's probably important to point out that notability is not fame nor importance, so the fact that I'd never heard of the company before wouldn't necessarily preclude notability. I may look into those articles later, and tag them if I'm having problems establishing their notability myself. Dancter 20:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I am aware that fame is not equal to notability, it would be a very small encyclopedia if the criteria was that everyone should know about it before it can be included. So I understand that if you've never heard of Monkeystone Games is has nothing to do with its' notability.

But if the primary criterion is whether the subject of an article has been the subject of non-trivial published works by multiple separate sources that are independent of that subject, wouldn't it mean that if for example IGN[2], Gamespot[3] and GameIndustry.biz[4] all have articles published about Media Molecule would establish the article's notability? By that same criteria Monkeystone Games is notable: [5], [6]) Again, I'd like to understand the way this works Felsir 12:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

To a certain degree, I'm still developing my understanding myself. My concern with the sources you've provided is the following text from the guideline:

Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the author or manufacturer talks about the software, and advertising for the software. Newspaper stories that do not credit a reporter or a news service and simply present company news in an uncritical or positive way may be treated as press releases unless there is evidence to the contrary.

This isn't as much a problem with the sources for Media Molecule (though even in those, the coverage of the company is somewhat peripheral, relating more to the LittleBigPlanet project in particular). It's much more of a problem for the sources cited for Monkeystone Games, as they contribute hardly anything beyond the content of the press release they're based on.[7] I would consider those "media reprints".Dancter 06:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you - the guidelines seem to be leaning towards Monkeystone being less notable than Media Molecule, if opinion had to be based solely on the cited links here. I'm sure though that Monkeystone received plenty of press coverage at startup because it was founded by John Romero for example this article:'Monkeying around with Monkeystone' seems to focus on the company and not so much about the games it makes. Felsir 09:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)