Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digiment

:{{la|Digiment}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Digiment Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Digiment}})

While its games may be notable, the company does not seem to be. I could not find any reliable sources that discuss the studio in an in-depth way. The article fails WP:CORP AdrianGamer (talk) 09:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of video games-related deletion discussions. AdrianGamer (talk) 09:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Kyle1278 (talk) 10:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

[comment added by eirmo Eirmo (talk) 10:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)]

{{ping|AdrianGamer}}

First my apologies if I am adding comment incorrectly, I am not sure how the talk page works, I was trying to read the talk page guidelines but it is still a bit unclear how to add comment.

I find this deletion comment rather inadequate. Digiment was particularly one of the pioneers during the Java Mobile games era but also later. In addition, Mr Eirik Moseng (co-founder and General Manager) is a frequent (keynote) speaker on many of the major video- and mobile game conferences world wide, including Mobile Games Forum (the world's premium mobile games event) where he has be a repeated speaker and panellist since 2008 on all of their events in London, Seattle and Hong Kong, in addition to participating in their MGF Icons event which is a special invite only for the C-level executives of the major players in the industry. Last MGF event Mr Moseng attended as speaker was MGF Asia in Hong Kong (https://www.globalmgf.com/asia/speakers/)... Other events include Mobile World Congress (2012), JoinGame, Nordic Game Conference and PocketGamer Connect (http://www.pgconnects.com/sanfrancisco/speakers/eirik-moseng/). Mr Moseng would not participate as speaker or panellist in the most prominent conferences and events in the gaming industry if Digiment was not a notable company. Also stating that their games seem notable but not the company does not make much sense. A company is notable if its products are notable.

Digiment was also one of the main sponsors of GameCamp (https://web.archive.org/web/20080212022853/http://gamecamp.no/) (look at the bottom of the page) in Norway together with Microsoft MSDN and Treyarch http://www.treyarch.com/ (notable for Call of Duty: Black Ops 3 among others). Digiment has never kept a very high profile but is a well-know and well-established company in the gaming industry.

In addition, Digiment has worked on many notable products for leading publishers which are under NDA and cannot be mentioned in the public.

In-famous Markus 'Notch' Persson (creator of Minercraft) worked for Digiment's Gamefederation studio in Stockholm Sweden working on Digiment's connected platform. Notch did not often mention this in interviews but he did it in a interview with BAFTA (http://guru.bafta.org/markus-persson-interview)

Eirmo (talk) 10:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

:{{ping|Eirmo}}: I'm afraid that in wikipedia terms, a company is not necessarily notable if its products are notable. Some explanation of this position can be found here (though it's explained fairly badly there, I think). If you want to read the policies on what counts towards notability, you could look at WP:GNG and WP:ORG, though the tl;dr is essentially that a subject must have significant coverage (not just a mention) in multiple independent reliable sources. (There is a policy on how to determine whether a source is reliable at WP:RS).

:The fact that the company has sponsored GameCamp might be a reason for its notability, but you will have to show that this sponsorship has been covered in sources independent of Digiment/GameCamp. The fact that much of its significant work is under NDAs is unfortunate from a point of view of having a wikipedia page, because almost by definition if it's work is covered by NDAs it will be difficult to verify: another core policy for wikipedia articles. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable. User:Eirmo is the creator of this article. Also, Eirmo seems to be Eirik Moseng, founder of this company. It just isn't covered well enough, and having one famous person formerly work there doesn't make it notable. In short, It's a promotion piece about a company who's most famous game doesn't even have an article. Frankly, I'm amazed that this passed AFC. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
• Delete due to a lack of reliable sources to show notability. The only current article sources outside of the company website and social media discuss games the company made, and not the company itself, and I couldn't find anything better. While the company may have created a lot of games and holds some influence in the industry, if there are no outside sources to show this then the article will have a hard time staying on Wikipedia. It might be worth trying to create articles for the games the company made instead of a company page. ZettaComposer (talk) 14:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry but this is ludicrous. Digiment is a well-know, notable and highly respected company in the gaming industry and this is not hard to see from external sources. Forwarding claims such as "It's a promotion piece about a company who's most famous game doesn't even have an article" is even more absurd.

There is tons of articles on Wikipedia written by internal people for companies far less notable than Digiment per wikipedias definition. A not-so-notable company does not appear with speakers at the most prominent and high-level conferences in the industry.

Vserv (https://www.techinasia.com/fund-maverick-ventures-enters-india-investment-adtech-firm-vserv) selected Digiment as the developer of the week (http://www.vserv.com/digiment-norway-developer-of-the-week/). There are several such articles out there.

Nevertheless, we can see where this is heading.

Eirmo (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

{{ping| User:Caeciliusinhorto}}

Digiment's sponsorship of GameCamp Norway is a relationship between the two organisations, not something an external auditor or partner is part of. Why would an organisation such as GameCamp list Treyarch, Microsoft and Digiment as sponsors if that was not the case? GameCamp and its organisers are clearly a trustworthy source for this. Here it is also mentioned by one of the former chairmans for GameCamp: http://www.ingebrigtsen.info/2008/09/28/game-camp-another-great-event-has-been-completed/ (Einar Ingebrigtsen is an Microsoft Valuable Professional and was earlier an game developer at Norwegian game developer Funcom among others).

Of course a company gets notable if it has notable products, this goes hand in hand. Apple is notable for its products such as iPod, iPhone and iPad. A game creator is notable for the games they produce. When a company or creator produces a notable product, the company or creator automatically becomes notable. How can a company not be noticed for it products if the product itself is notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eirmo (talk • contribs) 15:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Eirmo (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

:{{ping|User:Eirmo}} I am not suggesting that Digiment did not sponsor GameCamp. I have no reason to doubt that they did. The point I was trying to make was that the article has been suggested for deletion because the company does not appear to be notable. As a key part of the notability guideline is that the company has been covered in independent sources, GameCamp's discussion of the sponsorship deal does not demonstrate notability. However, if the deal has been covered by other independent reliable sources (newspapers? industry newsletters?), then that might help demonstrate that Digiment is notable.

:As for your assertion that "Digiment is a well-known, notable and highly respected company in the gaming industry": if this is truly the case, then it should be possible to provide sources to demonstrate this. Currently they don't, because they are either not independent of the company, or they do not provide significant coverage of the company.

:Finally, I shall address the articles you have linked in this discussion. The major problem is that none of them (with the possible exception of [http://www.vserv.com/digiment-norway-developer-of-the-week/ this]) come close to providing significant coverage of Digiment. Many of them would be suitable as sources in the article, but they are not sufficient to establish notability. As for the vserv article, I'm not convinced that it counts as an independent reliable source. The "developer of the week" series is apparently about "showcasing our partners", and people can submit their own names for consideration. Therefore, the profile of Eirik Moseng is not independent, and again not suitable for demonstrating notability. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

It is difficult to search up the articles on Digiment as the search result tend to return Digiment's website and links to their games on all different websites. But here is another article by DroidGamers, one of the most respectable online Android gaming publications: http://www.droidgamers.com/~xxtremet/games/index.php/game-news/android-game-news/2180-digiment-gearing-up-to-release-marv-the-miner-2-onto-android-soon

Eirmo (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Eirmo (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

{{ping|ZettaComposer}}

The intention is to create articles for notable Digiment games, however, a company page was first created to be referenced from the articles about the games.

{{ping|ThePlatypusofDoom}}

I am more amazed about the fact that the editorial controllers like yourself can put forward a lot of assumptions without researching any facts. The intention *is* to create articles for notable games from Digiment, however, a company page was first created as it would be referenced from the games articles. It is very contradictory to have articles about games from a creator but those games cannot reference an article about its creator because only the games are notable but not the company. A company becomes notable because of its innovation, technology or products. So obviously, when a product is notable or successful, the company and/or creator must be as well. This goes hand in hand. A company becomes notable because of its products.

:This only shows that the company exists but it does not prove its notability. Appearing in different industry talks doesn't mean the person is notable as well. Notability is not inherited, and must instead rely on verifiable, objective evidence. Here is where we list all our reliable sources. When a company is notable, they will get a lot of attention, and these reliable sources will write articles about them. There are only [https://cse.google.com/cse/home?cx=003516479746865699832:leawcwkqifq one reliable source that mention Digiment], which is far from sufficient. AdrianGamer (talk) 15:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

{{ping|Caeciliusinhorto}}

Well, Vserv is an entirely independent company of Digiment. They have thousands of partners of course, including Digiment. Among the most prominent ones that generates the most revenue, they select them as 'developer of the week'.

:{{ping|Eirno}} I think you're going to have a hard time convincing wikipedia that a company which is partnered with Digiment, and specifically profiled it because it "generates the most revenue" is independent in the sense that wikipedia means it. "Independent" doesn't simply mean "not owned by", it means (at least, as this essay argues, I think convincingly) that it has "no vested interest" in a topic, where a vested interest can be but is not limited to "a financial[...] relationship". Being a partner of Digiment certainly sounds like a potentially financial relationship; if it is not, I think you need to clarify this. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

{{ping|AdrianGamer}}

Steve Jobs was also a notable person, but so is his company because of the work he put down. Although a known person in the industry from before, Jonathan Blow got infamous for his Braid game and that was a solo-project more or less. Digiment has a revenue of ~£6m and close to 60 employees, that is a major difference.

But ok, using judgement and discretion is clearly not a thing for Wikipedia, point taken.

I do not know if it is possible for me to delete the article directly since I created it?

• Delete. Non-notable company, is mentioned twice in all of WP:VG/RS custom Google [https://cse.google.com/cse/home?cx=003516479746865699832:leawcwkqifq search engine]. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

{{ping|Eirmo}} However famous you think this company is, it's just not well-known. There are very little sources that confirm notability. On Wikipedia, we have standards for this, so please read over WP:CORP, WP:GNG, WP:COI and WP:OWN. Leave a message on my talk page if you have any problems. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 14:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

{{ping|ThePlatypusofDoom}}

I do not think I have ever mentioned that that company is famous. There is a different between being notable as in describing a company (adjective) and being famous. A company that has survived in an industry for 20 years where most companies drop like files and less than 2% are going break-even or being profitable is notable by itself. A company which has sold more than 8.5 million copies of a game (http://www.polygon.com/2012/11/24/3685012/marv-the-miner-trilogy-conclusion-available-now) is notable. Two of the largest and most respected gaming (Droidgamer) sites and/or tech sites (Poloygon) among others do not write about the company or its products if it is not "well-known". Digiment is not Blizzard, King, Supercell or Mojang but Digiment is just as well-known in this industry as Handy-Games and other similar companies. There are tons of articles written on the companies products and it is the products which define what the company are.

In addition, I would expect subjective opinions about what is "well-known" should be avoided in a place like Wikipedia. That you and others here may not have heard of the company, the company has tens of millions of players of their games. Further, Digiment is far more known than a lot of the companies already mentioned on Wikipedia, so per your definition of "well-known", it seems like Wikipedia has a lot of clean up to do. There are hundres to thousands of example on this, Magmic being one of them. There are 5 references listed; 3 being local online publications; 2 being sponsored articles. And 4 being made because of relationship between the journalist and Nicholas Reichenback (whom used to work for Gamefederation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Digiment). These articles have no public interest, which I would expect is the most single important requirement for sources mentioned in this thread. The articles are created based on personal relationships between a person in the company and the journalist and is nothing more than a PR jippo. Magic has never achieved anything notable per your definition except for creating and publishing a few games.

Further, I have read the links you provided as these were provided by AdrianGamer as well.

Eirmo (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC))

{{ping|Eirmo}} That is not what I meant. Wikipedia HAS a standard of what defines "well known", It's called WP:GNG and, in this case, WP:CORP. That is what this company fails to meet. Also the "Other companies are included" argument is irrelevant. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:SEWAGE, and WP:INN. I'm sorry, but COI article creation is just not allowed, and I don't think this company is notable, searches came up with little. Even if this article is kept, you would not be allowed to edit it. Read WP:COI. Finally, just because the product is notable, doesn't mean the company is. What you make may be notable, but the company alone is not. The link you provided shows the PRODUCT, not the company itself. See WP:PRODUCT. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:53, 1 May 2016 (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.