Variable State: One paragraph about the founding, which could be merged.  IgelRM ( talk ) 17:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games , Companies ,  and United Kingdom .  IgelRM ( talk ) 17:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is an unsatisfactory basis for deletion.  The company is noteworthy and is currently featured prominently in its industry press, as recently as 7 days ago: https://www.gameinformer.com/news/2024/06/09/polaris-is-a-co-op-pve-shooter-coming-to-pc-this-year-with-fully-destructible https://www.gematsu.com/2024/06/sci-fi-co-op-shooter-polaris-announced-for-pc https://www.pcgamesn.com/polaris/new-sci-fi-pve-shooter The company has been nominated for numerous prestigious awards, including 3 British Academy Game Awards.  It is the recipient of a BAFTA for Music and has won the Writers Guild award for Best Writing in a Video Game.  Furthermore, the company remains active, developing and releasing games, and is considerably more active than other similar game companies whose pages are not nominated for deletion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campo_Santo_(company) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_Sparrow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_Machine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simogo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messhof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_Road https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_Squid_(company) My concern is that this nomination for deletion is politically motivated rather than being a genuine suggestion.  Deleting this page would be wildly inconsistent with the practice of deleting and updating other video game company pages.  This request for deletion should be cancelled at the earliest opportunity.  Badlandssummary ( talk ) 19:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] "My concern is that this nomination for deletion is politically motivated rather than being a genuine suggestion" what a very serious accusation.  Do you have any proof to back that up at all or are you just saying that?  Procyon117 ( talk ) 20:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It is the only logical explanation for why this particular article has been singled out for deletion when numerous other video game company articles, related to video game studios of equivalent or lesser notoriety, have not been targeted in this way.  Either apply a policy consistently or not at all.  This deletion decision reflects very poorly on the instigator and those who defend it.  It's an arbitrary, unliteral decision, and in the absence of a consistently-applied approach, feels like an attack.  If you feel that accusation is serious, then so do I.  It is incumbent on the deleter to explain why they are choosing a targeted attack and not a blanket policy.  Badlandssummary ( talk ) 10:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You have provided absolutely zero proof that this is "targeted" in any way, shape or form.  We are humans, things are going to slip under the radar, and as others have said, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument.  Procyon117 ( talk ) 19:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not sure if it helps to know, but e.g. Giant Sparrow and Giant Squid (company) appear to fail notability too and I or someone else might nominate them as well.  IgelRM ( talk ) 16:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Badlandssummary ( talk ) 19:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Why are you spamming the same thing three times?  Procyon117 ( talk ) 20:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you.  Yes, a mistake on the editor's part.  This is my first experience dealing with a deletion request.  And given the request seems so targeted and wildly inconsistent with the rules applied to other comparable and lesser-known game studios, I felt a sense of panic and my emotions were running hot.  I don't understand why this article has been singled out in this way.  If a rule is going to be applied consistently across all video game studios, then I would understand it, but if this particular article is going to be the target of a political action, that seems unjustified and against the spirit of this website.  Badlandssummary ( talk ) 10:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I've elected to remove them, as I assume them to be mistaken on the editor's part.  - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 21:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete They seem like a perfectly fine studio and they even arguably have a piece of SIGCOV at GamesIndustry.biz , but notability is not inherited from a studio's games, therefore they fail WP:NCORP at the moment even if their games are in fact notable.  Badlandssummary appears to be an WP:SPA , so if they really are a member of the studio or closely associated with it, then I urge them to read the guidelines on WP:COI rather than embarrass themselves by insulting editors and making WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments, which will not prevent the article from being removed.  Work with people to find notability, and if none can be found it probably doesn't belong.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 06:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I should also add that notability is not temporary; once you are notable you remain that way, we are not going and deleting Square (video game company) because they are no longer making games.  It's getting there that is the problem, and often people with conflict of interest totally ignore notability when making a page because they are simply there to publicize.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 06:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There are numerous items of significant coverage.  This assessment feels extremely weak, particularly if you directly compare the Variable State article to other equivalent articles, such as those I've cited in my response above.  Why would I feel embarrassed?  I've not insulted anyone.  I've made fair and justified accusations based on the unilateral decision to target a specific article, rather than apply a blanket policy.  You are embarrassing yourself by making unsubstituted accusations as to my identity, when you have no basis for doing so other than your own opinion.  If my tone is urgent and anxious, it is because I am witnessing an obvious injustice here and am disappointed in the hypocritical and targeted actions of a few editors who are not acting in the spirit of this website and community.  Regarding articles highlighting the noteworthiness of this studio, I would direct you to the following: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gaming/what-to-play/virginia-review--the-x-files-meets-twin-peaks-in-a-remarkable-in/ https://time.com/4498103/virginia-review-pc-xbox/ https://www.gameinformer.com/games/virginia/b/playstation4/archive/2016/09/22/game-informer-virginia-review.aspx https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-09-22-virginia-review https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/289831 ?  https://www.pcgamer.com/virginia-wins-the-writers-guild-of-great-britains-prize-for-best-game-writing/ https://www.gamespot.com/articles/nominees-for-2017-independent-games-festival-award/1100-6446752/ https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=csmZMNXWZrw https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=Zb_IkGzFY1o https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/how-virginias-cinematic-editing-works https://www.gamedeveloper.com/design/road-to-the-igf-variable-state-s-i-virginia-i- Badlandssummary ( talk ) 10:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] They are all discussing the video game, Virginia.  Which already has an article here and is indisputably notable.  We're talking about the studio, though, which none of those articles are specifically about.  Saying a deletion nomination is based on politics with zero proof is not "fair and justified".  Seriously, you'll want to stop the ad hominem insults claiming actions are "targeted" against you with no evidence whatsoever or you will definitely be blocked for incivility.  Yes, there are plenty of spammy game studio articles on Wikipedia, that does not absolve your article from needing to be notable.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 10:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] My criticism of your argument is threefold:  1) What good is any policy if it is not applied consistently and fairly?  The subject of the article clearly passes a higher notoriety threshold than other examples I have given in this discussion, so why should it be singled out?  Furthermore, its content is more widely sourced and more thoroughly cited than many of the other examples I have provided.  As such, if this article is to be singled out, that implies an injustice, and a policy which is being exploited for partisan reasons.  If you were a parking attendant who found a street full of cars with no parking tickets, would it be fair and reasonable for you to cherry pick specific cars to receive penalties?  No, that'd be judged as prejudiced and irrational.  It is similarly prejudicial to target this article on the basis of an infraction of policy when there are worse offenders elsewhere which are not receiving similar attention.  Fairness is the cornerstone of justice.  2) The accusation of ad hominem against me has no basis.  My challenge to the editor who triggered this deletion process was to explain why this article had been singled out, when so many more articles fall far below the standard of content and citation in this article.  Therefore, it is only reasonable to ask why the policy being used to support the deletion decision is being applied in a narrow and targeted manner, rather than consistently and fairly applied.  It implies an agenda or political motive.  3) The accusation of "incivility" is spurious in the extreme.  If you claim my tone of my replies, which have most certainly not involved foul or threatening language, are of greater concern than the unilateral decision to delete an article which comprises many hours of hard work and which meets the standard met by other equivalent article, then I question your ethics.  I recognise no incivility in my conduct, merely a justified distress at both the obliteration of my work, representing hours and days of my life, and the unjust way in which this process is being conducted.  If this results in my being banned, then I am being excluded from a community which does not value evidence, fairness, or justice, and which wields its authority in a selective and inconsistent manner, in which case I shall perceive it as no slight.  I am grateful my remarks here serve as my public testimony.  I am not embarrassed by them.  They have been made in good faith.  Badlandssummary ( talk ) 13:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Clearly you did not read the linked WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS because it explains in detail why your (1) and (2) argument and your entire claim of unfairness is false.  Messhof , which you linked, is also probably non-notable.  In that case it *should* be deleted, but nobody got around to it yet.  However, the fact that yours did not slip past the radar does not mean the nominator was playing favorites.  It's possible they did not even realize it was not notable as it was created 7 entire years ago when they may or may not have been there checking new pages.  Some straight-up hoaxes have existed for 10+ years simply because nobody found them, it's very easy for stuff to slip past the radar sometimes.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 15:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] (Although I realized that Messhof is judged differently as we have different policies for individual developers as we do companies; WP:NCORP is more stringent than WP:NARTIST , probably due to how common it is for companies to attempt to game the system.) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 15:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] But these game developer companies are just personal studios of creative professionals here, so there isn't really a difference for notability.  The article with be the same if Burroughs and Kenny collectively are notable as creative professionals.  IgelRM ( talk ) 23:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Just because other bad things exist doesn't mean we get to keep this bad thing.  What political motivation are you even implying here?  What political ideology or agenda is demonstrated in this article that would be targeted?  What "community that doesn't value evidence" are you speaking out against?  What the fuck are you even talking about?  λ Negative MP1 16:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] They don't realise that things can pass under the radar, and their arguments certainly aren't helping their case.  Procyon117 ( talk ) 19:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Zx.  Also, I feel like there is some WP:COI problem here.   🍕 Boneless Pizza!  🍕 ( 🔔 ) 11:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete When I reviewed this articles GAN (which, quite frankly, should have never even happened because of how poorly written it was), I got the feeling that this topic wasn't notable, but that's a topic I personally believe should be kept out of GAN as it's not one of the criteria.  This discussion further proves to me that this topic likely isn't notable if the article creator is resulting to personal attacks and accusations instead of actually demonstrating how this topic is worthy for inclusion on Wikipedia.  λ Negative MP1 16:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ok, but we should still evaluate the studio's notability independently which only Zx has really done so far.  The political accusations are undue but I think the the creator is still acting in good faith overall.  In any case, some WP:ATD would seem easily applicable given the established game articles.  Maybe my nomination was partially because the article doesn't appear in a good state.  The GamesIndustry.biz feature is significant (was hard to tell with all the sources about specific game development) and the Develop studio nomination might signify recurring coverage.  I hope this in retrospect somewhat bold nomination helps clarify how "game studio biography"-like articles are evaluated.  IgelRM ( talk ) 15:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I stated in my message that "I got the feeling that this topic wasn't notable."  My stance on this companies notability was separately assessed.  I'll agree with you on GamesIndustry.biz being significant, but one source isn't enough.  λ Negative MP1 18:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per ZX.  Spy-cicle💥 Talk ?  22:45, 24 June 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete