Broken Rules: The only WP:SIGCOV I could find was this article (not included in the article, ironically) that says it's an interview, but is more like a profile.  However, one source does not notability make.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 05:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies .  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 05:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions .  North America 1000 12:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I see.  Well, first off, thanks for providing that article.  Hadn't found it yet at the time.  I've added it to the article as a reference, and from what I understand (am new here) it counts as WP:SIGCOV , not least because it doesn't look like it's written like PocketGamer.biz's actual company profiles (eg. [24] [25] [26] ) or published by a sponsored guest author, even tho it's not written in dialogue format like many interviews.  As for further sources of the company specifically, I found a couple more articles (in German) that may qualify towards establishing notability ( 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ).  There's also a ~one and a half hour long video interview that goes over company history and developments, as well as a range of in-depth interviews/articles with developers of the studio about their games ( 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 ).  While the company itself isn't the main topic, some of these do include a summary of the background/history of the company up until that point, as well as other company details .  I'm not sure if any of these contain enough info to constitute "significant coverage", as the WP:SIGCOV doesn't specify what's "more than a trivial mention" and how detailed the topic needs to be addressed, which is also why I included several of the ones I found for evaluation and further discussion, tho I am aware of WP:LOTSOFSOURCES.  Scarfront ( talk ) 09:51, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm skeptical any of those are secondary or significant coverage besides the Die Presse one, which does seem like it's good enough.  (The criteria for a secondary source is that the writer of the publication gives their own synthesis or interpretation of the information, rather than just asking questions to an interviewee).  A lot of them seem like they'd be better off in the Development section of the game in question, like Gibbon: Beyond the Trees (which, ironically, is exceedingly notable, but has no article yet).  But if you can find a source that devotes a significant amount to the writer's own views on the studio, like the aforementioned two, let me know since it's fairly close to passing GNG.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 22:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Those are some fair points.  I didn't know quite as well about some of the criteria, so thanks for clearing that up.  And I agree, many of those sources would better serve articles about the games, Gibbon especially.  Anyway, I did find some additional sources about the studio that I think qualify.  One is an article about the studio in the November 2022 issue of Edge (magazine) , pages 94-97, written by Niall O'Donoghue.  The issue is available both in print and online, yet behind a paywall, tho there's a preview of sorts.  I also have a PDF file of the article.  The other source is an in-depth German article about the studio in the April 2019 issue of the lifestyle magazine of Diners Club Österreich (Austria), pages 44-48, written by Angela Sirch.  I couldn't find it anywhere online, but I have a PDF file of this article as well.  I can provide the PDF files if they can be of any help or if you have need of them.  Not sure how exactly this is usually handled here tho.  Scarfront ( talk ) 00:58, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Those sources seem perfect.  I'm not exactly familiar with how scans are sent on Wikipedia, but I assume it would be via some kind of file-sharing service.  Still, the Edge one seems like significant coverage and that alone would easily put it over the edge.  The other magazine would just further establish its notability.  Since I'm almost certain SIGCOV exists now, I will withdraw the AfD and give you a chance to get the scans posted on the talk page of the article.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 05:55, 14 April 2023 (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: withdrawn