Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abstraction Games

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. Courcelles (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abstraction Games

(Find video game sources: "Abstraction Games" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

The current state of the article does not show why the company is notable, at the moment it is just a list of games they've ported, and similar to Nixxes, that does not prove why it is notable. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as as barely passing WP:GNG with multiple reliable independent in-depth sources. While having ported/published notable video games is WP:NOTINHERITED, the developer themselves has received some coverage. Of the sources present [1] looks good and [2] seems in-depth, while [3] can supplement well. There is not a lot to write, but it's the kind of history and development info we want. All their games and releases are well-sourced(able). — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 00:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree with Hellknowz. Article does nothing but list the games ported/released, which seems defensible given the good/extensive sources -- Hybris1984 (talk) 10:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It looks like this company had been discussed several times in niche venues mostly designed for gamers, but I was not able to find any evidence of it having been the subject of broader interest. KDS4444^Talk 09:43, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and draft & userfy if needed as all of this is still questionable for solid independent notability for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 08:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG in my opinion; just because they port notable games does not mean they are notable for doing so. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:15, 2 March 2016 (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.