Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Midas Interactive Entertainment

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Midas Interactive Entertainment

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Zero sourcing found, only 100 results for the name on Google. Parent company is a redlink. Most of the video games listed are not notable or only have stub articles, suggesting a possible WP:WALLED Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Looking around, the company is only ever mentioned in connection with one or another game it published (mostly in old mags from the Internet Archive). This is the only reliable source I found that gives a bit more than two words on the topic, but even here it is discussed in WP:PASSING by what is already a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL article. Whether all of the games it published are unnotable, I cannot say yet, but given that Midas mostly deals/dealt with budget games, this can probably be assumed. IceWelder [✉] 18:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, Despite not being named like one, this is basically a list. As a list, I think it just scrapes by the (somewhat ill-defined) list notability guidelines: It's a meaningful and useful category with at least some notable members whose membership can be reliably sourced. ApLundell (talk) 04:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Zero sourcing found" is just as much as a problem for list articles as it is any other article, so I'm not quite sure I follow your rationale. Sergecross73 msg me 16:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's not *literally* zero sources available. The published games themselves constitute first-party sources that would justify inclusion in a list or category. (I realize that without third-party sources discussing the importance of the category overall, this argument depends on the vagueness of the LISTN guidelines, so I certainly don't insist on it. It's just how I would look at it, if it were up to me.) ApLundell (talk) 20:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just saying that the GNG would still apply here regardless. Your comment seemed to suggest otherwise. It also seemed to suggest WP:USEFUL was a reason to keep an article too. I'm just letting you know neither are. Sergecross73 msg me 22:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me like there's far from a clear consensus that USEFUL applies to lists. The list notability guidelines say "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.", and that matches my observations about how deletion discussions about lists go. That is the context for my original comment that this might scrape through the LISTN guidelines since they're pretty wide open to interpretation. ApLundell (talk) 01:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a bit of a reach, especially considering it's not actually even a list article, in title or structure. Nor do I think that's a plausible conversion, as it's rare to have a "List of games published by X" article when "X" doesn't have their own separate company article. We're moving into dangerous territory where we allow the scenario of "Well the subject doesn't meet the GNG but there's a useful list in the middle of the article so let's keep it. Sergecross73 msg me 13:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Could not find the sourcing to satisfy the WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Sergecross73 msg me 13:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Sergecross' comments. Namcokid 47 18:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of all the things I can find on Google on this company, most are online retailers or databases, with the only other ones being their official website and a user-contributed wiki about Dingo Pictures, so it fails WP:GNG. Dominicmgm (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per reasons cited above. Northern Escapee (talk) 09:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There appears to be a near-complete lack of third-party sources, and it seems to lack notoriety. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There simply aren't reliable sources to support this, as others have pointed out, so it's got to go! DocFreeman24 (talk) 03:32, 13 April 2021 (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.