- 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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Evryware ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced since creation in 2007. No significant coverage on google, newspapers.com, etc. Fails WP:CORP Alyo ( chat· edits) 07:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Alyo ( chat· edits) 07:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Alyo ( chat· edits) 07:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:25, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Agree, one of those junk articles from early wiki days with no sourcing. I can't find notable sources either. Oaktree b ( talk) 16:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete There is this source [1] that was on the talk page(thanks JimmyBlackwing) but an article can't exist with one source. Timur9008 ( talk) 20:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Keep I am checking out other companies in field of game industry. It seems for this type of companies, their notable products, bring them notability. Also I have added two other sources please check it out. Brayan ocaner ( talk) 22:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Keep A developer of several notable games (well more than 2-3) would be reasoanble to have a page to index their games (in the same vein as NCREATIVE) but ideally this should pass NCORP too. -- Masem ( t) 17:50, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete I would advise against using the "notable games" argument right now. In order for a company to be notable, there has to be significant discussion among reliable and independent sources about the company itself, not just the games. It is possible that if a game company has several notable games, then the company could be notable. However, in order for that argument to be valid, there needs to be some insight from the sources into the company itself or their involvement in the development of their games. Otherwise, all the "notable games" argument would prove is that the games themselves are notable, not the company.
- Looking into Evryware, the only four sources that I have found that talk about the company itself is the interview with Games Domain, a review for The Ancient Art of War in the Skies from The One For Amiga Games, another review for The Ancient Art of War in the Skies by Pelit, and a retrospective review of The Ancient Art of War by ParcelaDigital. The first source is the only source found by JimmyBlackwing used in the talk page. It is a reliable and significant source. However, it is not independent from Evryware and is instead a primary source thanks to it being an interview. The second source is an obscure print magazine that briefly mentions Evrywhere as an unknown company. The third source is from a Finnish magazine that is considered reliable, but does not significantly mention Evryware beyond mentioning they have developed other lesser-known games. And the fourth source, while it does provide insight into the company, has unknown reliability since it is obscure. Not even the Spanish Wikipedia has an article on ParcelaDigital. The latter two sources were used in the article on Evryware by the way.
- It's worth pointing out that the articles on the games themselves don't have much information about the development process behind the games themselves and are only notable because they have been reviewed by gaming magazines. Admittedly, my source search was cursory. But unless other Wikipedians have additional sources that can prove that Evryware is notable beyond the fact they have created notable games, I am going to vote for deletion. WP:Notability is not inherited. Lazman321 ( talk) 21:43, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Lazman321's analysis above is spot on. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and I can't find any, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing ++ 12:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Not enough news coverage. Chelokabob ( talk) 00:21, 4 March 2022 (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.
- 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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Evryware ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced since creation in 2007. No significant coverage on google, newspapers.com, etc. Fails WP:CORP Alyo ( chat· edits) 07:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Alyo ( chat· edits) 07:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Alyo ( chat· edits) 07:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:25, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Agree, one of those junk articles from early wiki days with no sourcing. I can't find notable sources either. Oaktree b ( talk) 16:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete There is this source [1] that was on the talk page(thanks JimmyBlackwing) but an article can't exist with one source. Timur9008 ( talk) 20:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Keep I am checking out other companies in field of game industry. It seems for this type of companies, their notable products, bring them notability. Also I have added two other sources please check it out. Brayan ocaner ( talk) 22:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Keep A developer of several notable games (well more than 2-3) would be reasoanble to have a page to index their games (in the same vein as NCREATIVE) but ideally this should pass NCORP too. -- Masem ( t) 17:50, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete I would advise against using the "notable games" argument right now. In order for a company to be notable, there has to be significant discussion among reliable and independent sources about the company itself, not just the games. It is possible that if a game company has several notable games, then the company could be notable. However, in order for that argument to be valid, there needs to be some insight from the sources into the company itself or their involvement in the development of their games. Otherwise, all the "notable games" argument would prove is that the games themselves are notable, not the company.
- Looking into Evryware, the only four sources that I have found that talk about the company itself is the interview with Games Domain, a review for The Ancient Art of War in the Skies from The One For Amiga Games, another review for The Ancient Art of War in the Skies by Pelit, and a retrospective review of The Ancient Art of War by ParcelaDigital. The first source is the only source found by JimmyBlackwing used in the talk page. It is a reliable and significant source. However, it is not independent from Evryware and is instead a primary source thanks to it being an interview. The second source is an obscure print magazine that briefly mentions Evrywhere as an unknown company. The third source is from a Finnish magazine that is considered reliable, but does not significantly mention Evryware beyond mentioning they have developed other lesser-known games. And the fourth source, while it does provide insight into the company, has unknown reliability since it is obscure. Not even the Spanish Wikipedia has an article on ParcelaDigital. The latter two sources were used in the article on Evryware by the way.
- It's worth pointing out that the articles on the games themselves don't have much information about the development process behind the games themselves and are only notable because they have been reviewed by gaming magazines. Admittedly, my source search was cursory. But unless other Wikipedians have additional sources that can prove that Evryware is notable beyond the fact they have created notable games, I am going to vote for deletion. WP:Notability is not inherited. Lazman321 ( talk) 21:43, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Lazman321's analysis above is spot on. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and I can't find any, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing ++ 12:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Not enough news coverage. Chelokabob ( talk) 00:21, 4 March 2022 (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.