Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WayForward Technologies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. EdJohnston (talk) 03:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WayForward Technologies

WayForward Technologies (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Contested PROD. Article does not reference any secondary reliable sources to assert notability. Article describes a corporation without referring to secondary sources (external links are copies of information from corp's website). Article was tagged for notability concerns in September 2007, tag was recently removed along with prod without any major change in content.Gazimoff WriteRead 23:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep the 3rd party sources produced upon doing a google search need to be brought into the article but, there appears to be a lot of them (game related sites so I can't access from work though, hence the weak). Weirdly, I'd say the article on the founder is a better candidate for deletion as I can't find anything significant about him. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It's a good point. The only thing I'd ask is if the sources only mention the company in passing, or if they're an in-depth article on it. WP:CORP states that sources cannot cover the subject in passing, which is what most game reviews etc tend to do. It's why a google search in this case cannot be relied upon to assert notability - is it the games that are notable or the company who made them?Gazimoff WriteRead 08:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, the only sources available are directory listings after an exhaustive search. User:Krator (t c) 12:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as it has real world significance and claim by Jasynnash2 that sources can be found on Google searches. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • What leads you to believe sources are among that Google search? I went through twenty pages of filtered results, and found none. What evidence do you have for real world significance, and what backup (in terms of sources) do you have for it? Do you base this opinion upon close examination of the article and its sources, or just a general keep-happy tendency? User:Krator (t c) 16:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify I said there were alot of ghits for "WayForward Technologies" but, that most of the ones I saw were at game sites which are blocked to me from work and I couldn't verify the contents of the ghits. I don't know if that is what User:Krator meant by filtered results or not. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete only because there are no reliable sources cited. If the claims in the article can be backed up (and it is the duty of those seeking the article to be kept to cite them, not mine to show they don't exist), then it'd be an easy keep. Stifle (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep: there are sources out there, such as this one [1]. Between the one line mentions of WayForward Technologies on lists of developers, there are a few reviews of their games that mention them and mention a detail or two. I hope someone actually follows through on this and does the hard work of citing sources. Randomran (talk) 05:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Its games may have been reviewed, but I do not see how this corporation is in any way notable, which is not inherited. Am I missing something? Bearian (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - although not the most famous of developers, it has longevity and has been reviewed itself (even if most hits are for its games). For example, here's one hit. There are others but a subscription is required for most I found at this point. There are other hits too, but they mainly mention the company in the context of it being a game's publisher. Even if that's not a direct review of the company, after you see it enough times - even in that context - it takes on some notability of its own. Having said all that, I'd sure like to see the redlinks removed...I wouldn't want this article being kept to be used a reason for creating another article about a game that is NOT notable...  Frank  |  talk  22:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Company is barely notable, but I think it meets the standard, looking at the sources referenced above. Article needs to be improved, not deleted. Plvekamp (talk) 23:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
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.