Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Castaway Entertainment  (2nd nomination)

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Castaway Entertainment}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Castaway Entertainment}})

A short lived video game developer that does not appear to pass the WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Though the article says they never developed a game, it does seem like they co-developed one, "adgame" about the Toyota Yaris (video game), but that was it. The only sources currently in the article, and all other sources I can find through searches aside from trivial mentions, are all either just reports on its deal with EA or reports on the company shutting down, which, per WP:NCORP, falls under routine coverage that does not contribute towards notability. It was nominated for deletion once way back in 2007, but that resulted in a No Consensus decision, largely because it was still unclear whether or not the studio was still in operation. As we now know that it is not, and never produced anything of note, I felt it was time to re-examine it. Rorshacma (talk) 03:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 03:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 03:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 03:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Merge to Blizzard North as alternative to deletion. A single sentence would suffice, based on the coverage, but this short-lived developer is part of the other's story. czar 19:07, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per above argument about ATD, not enough to warrant keeping this as a stand-alone article per NCOMPANY/GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• {{ping|Northamerica1000|p=}}, why does this need further discussion? czar 04:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

:*{{re|Czar}} I feel that two !votes for merging, along with one !vote for deletion (the nomination itself) does not constitute a solid consensus. Note that the nominator appears to be opining for straight deletion, rather than merging or redirection. It seems that you may be discounting the opinion of the nominator in favor of yours and Piotrus' above, essentially declaring a consensus by way of questioning the relisting of the discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

::: AfDs are closed in logs each day with comparable activity. This is an uncontroversial close, especially given that it preserves content from a stub. czar 05:57, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

:::*{{re|Czar}} Perhaps you could provide some examples of similar recent closures. While AfD is not based upon an !vote count, two merge !votes and one delete !vote, all of which include valid, guideline- and policy-based arguments, does not constitute an actual consensus. I've been doing this for a while; perhaps standards have laxed in favor of faster closures. It's also important to note the arguments in the previous AfD discussion as well, rather than ignore that discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:25, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

::::: {{ping|Northamerica1000|p=}}, I don't want to get off-topic here—just wanted to know if there was a reason for the relist, but most logs have closures with two non-nom !votes (bottom of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 October 5, middle of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 October 9). Relists are only meant to be used when the consensus is unclear or controversial. This discussion is in agreement that the subject is non-notable and there have been no arguments against preserving what can be salvaged from the content. czar 06:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

:::::*{{re|Czar}} Some of those closures you mention are non-admin closures, and very well may have been best closed by an admin. Most are discussions where three users (including the nominator) have all opined for the same result, which is not how this discussion has transpired. Nowhere at WP:RELIST does it say that relists are "only meant" when consensus is controversial, as you state above. It seems that you are entirely making your own rule in this case, because it is not policy based. Furthermore, in congruence with WP:RELIST, this discussion has had "only a few participants (including the nominator)." This is not a particularly substantive debate, and the concerns of the nominator have barely been addressed. Additionally, the fact that the article has already been through the AfD process once with a no consensus closure deems this discussion as at the very least potentially controversial. If I were to close this now with a merge result, it is quite possible that others may consider it to be a WP:SUPERVOTE. Essentially, if one more user were to opine for merging, with a valid guideline- or policy-based rationale, that would be enough to be considered a consensus in this particular instance. A simple two versus one, when all provide such valid rationales, is not really a consensus, it's a vote count. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

::::::: The mentioned articles are not at deletion review and they will not be contested. As for vote counting, I don't think it's "two versus one" and it's easy enough to ask the "one": {{ping|Rorshacma|p=}}, are you opposed to merger? czar 07:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

::::::::*Comment - I suppose I would not be opposed to merger. Looking at the Blizzard North article, there is already precedent for another, short lived company that was formed by former employees to be mentioned there, so a sentence merger there for this one would probably be fine. Rorshacma (talk) 16:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• Keep I've added a couple sources. I feel articles in IGN and Gamespot are sufficient to meet GNG, and this is enough to establish notability per WP:GNG: "It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right". NemesisAT (talk) 21:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
• : Those sources—simple announcements of the studio's closure—do not pass WP:CORPDEPTH. They are repackaged press releases, some consisting entirely of quotes. czar 07:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

:*Yeah, one of the new sources is literally a press release from the company, and thus not a valid reliable source, and the other is still just routine coverage of the studio's closure. Rorshacma (talk) 16:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Blizzard North as an WP:ATD measure. The further sources which have been brought up still do not provide nearly enough information for its written prose to be expanded beyond that of a near-stub. On a side note, North America1000's decision to err on the side of caution by relisting the discussion should be commended. Haleth (talk) 14:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
• Merge as suggested above, given the routine coverage. Drmies (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.