Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panesian

:{{la|Panesian}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panesian}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{findsources|Panesian}})

This article fails to establish the notability of its subject as required by Wikipedia Notability guideline for organizations and companies. Fleet Command (talk) 08:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Fleet Command (talk) 08:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Keep As I said on the talk page, after deproding it, the company is called something else. [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Peek-A-Boo+Poker%22++OR+%22Bubble+Bath+Babes%22&btnG=Search+Archives&ned=us&hl=en&scoring=a] Google news has two valid results found so far for it. There is mention of the games in many places. Was its actual name Panesian Pleasures Ltd.? If so a rename is in order. Have to find a picture of one of the games and see what was written on the cover. Its notable for producing games which Nintendo sued them over, they illegally released to be used on its system without a license from Nintendo. I'm sure there was news about that back when it came out. Not every newspaper allows people to freely search their archives though. Dream Focus 09:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Dream Focus' GNews link basically argues in favor of deletion. Of the two results, one doesn't even mention Panesian, and the other is about risque games and has a passing mention of Panesian. Hardly "valid results." If there is "mention of the games in many places," I'm certainly not seeing it, beyond some gaming blog postings, etc. Nothing that qualifies as verifiable, reliable secondary sourcing. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 09:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Also nominated for deletion, Bubble Bath Babes and Peek A Boo Poker, both games made by this company. Dream Focus 15:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
• Delete does not appear to pass WP:CORP, which is actually kind of surprising since you'd think an adult video game company back then would have caused a big moral outrage. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. {{#ifeq:|no||([http://www.google.com/cse?cx=009782238053898643791:8naerdbd-oy&q={{urlencode:Panesian}} Search video game sources])}} Reach Out to the Truth 16:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep or merge with its more notable products. As DreamFocus points out these articles are notable as a whole. The company produced unlicensed games for the NES and these are some of the rarest and most sought-after games for collectors fetching prices in the several hundreds to over $1000. There are reliable sources that cover them. Some examples: [http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/galleries/retro-rewind-pricey-collectible-games/?cp=4&page=3 1], [http://www.1up.com/do/feature?cId=3130201 2], [http://www.1up.com/do/feature?cId=3144996 3], [http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=191868 4]. In anticipation of the claim that these are merely trivial references as these articles cover the topic of rare unlicensed games in general, I'll comment that the notability here suffers from dilution as the company made as many as three notable games. The company is now defunct so finding sources that discuss it in isolation from its products is, for obvious reasons, difficult. If nothing substantial can be found then I'd change my vote to merge. Deletion is unwarranted. -Thibbs (talk) 19:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment This coverage is trivial. I'm not sure how your comment about the notability suffering from "dilution" changes that. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 08:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• Objection 1: Notability is not inherited. Fleet Command (talk) 04:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• I take it you're arguing here that the company that has produced notable games doesn't thereby "inherit" their notability. This argument is severely undermined by your arguments in the other AfDs that this company's games aren't notable. What, then, is the company not capable of inheriting? The lack of its products' notability? Such an argument is without any meaning. The three articles taken as a whole are quite obviously notable. Reliable sources discuss them significantly and so at the most basic level let us acknowledge that we have before us something that has broad notability. As far as whether the three articles are independently notable enough to be kept there is some argument. I believe that the article on Panesian would be an ideal catch-all compromise for those topics that may not have sufficient notability of sourcing to support an individual article. As I said before, deletion of all three articles would hurt and not help Wikipedia. -Thibbs (talk) 05:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• I'd like to point out that the NOTINHERITED thing is an essay, it someone's opinion, anyone able to make an essay that says the exact opposite if they felt like it. Dream Focus 08:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• Do not play with words. FIRST: It was you who suggested the inheritance of notability and hence assumed it notable, not me. SECOND: I didn't suggest inheritance from another article. I suggested it for another related subject. There is a very significant distinction between the two which I do not think a smart Wikipedian like you have failed to see. Fleet Command (talk) 10:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• If you could show by using quoted language where anybody has made a claim of inherited notability then that would probably go a long way to demonstrating the applicability of WP:NOTINHERITED. I mean I have framed my argument that all three articles should not be deleted by saying that something notable exists here as demonstrated by the reliable sources. Your argument seems to be that since I have asserted notability for the products that I am foreclosed from arguing in the alternative that if the community deems any of the topics to be less than notable then they should be merged into this parent article so that Wikipedia doesn't lose verifiably notable material needlessly. NOTHINHERITED is policy that aims to deny article-status to "hanger on" articles that are outshined by their progenitors (or in this case their offspring). To argue for Paresian's deletion under this rationale and in the same breath to argue that the "outshining" offspring are non-notable seems a bit disingenuous to me. The result you're seeking is the deletion of all three articles. Will you not concede that there is something verifiably notable here at least in a broad sense (i.e. in regarding the three articles together collectively)? Shouldn't you at least be voting to merge? -Thibbs (talk) 12:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• You said:

  If you could show by using quoted language where anybody has made a claim of inherited notability then that would probably go a long way to demonstrating the applicability of WP:NOTINHERITED.

  That is a valid question. You introduced four sources. Three of these sources (#2, #3 and #4) do not directly cover Panesian. They cover NES games, NES itself, the topic of unlicensed cartridges and other NES-related stuff. Correct me if I am wrong: You listed these sources to oppose my nomination of deletion per lack of proof of notability. Since these sources do not cover Panesian significantly, hence I presume you mean that these sources introduce subjects that are notable and Panesian inherits their notability. You reinforce this assumption of mine by stating that direct coverage for Panesian cannot be found!

  You said:

  The result you're seeking is the deletion of all three articles. Will you not concede that there is something verifiably notable here at least in a broad sense (i.e. in regarding the three articles together collectively)?

  I seek to delete the three article because I do not think their topics are notable. Although I do concede that on the whole there is something notable amongst the three topics, I do not believe that those articles merit being kept. I think whatever notable in these articles can be salvaged in the time remaining. Fleet Command (talk) 13:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

{{outdent}}

• You've acknowledged that there is something notable here. You recognize (I think) that there are reliable sources that cover the topic (in at least its broad sense). These are the inclusion criteria for material on Wikipedia. So... and I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but... why is it that you aren't voting "merge" at least? A vote for "delete" will result in the loss of verifiable notable information. Does that improve Wikipedia in your estimation? -Thibbs (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• I dare say I'm still not convinced but I believe assuming good faith and letting a merger happen won't hurt. After all, articles can always be deleted or undeleted. So, merge it is. Fleet Command (talk) 09:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
• Objection 2: If finding source for it is impossible, then it is not notable and therefore does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia. Fleet Command (talk) 04:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• Sources are available. Please review the four (4) I list immediately above. You may also wish to examine some of the other sources I have listed under the AfDs for the other two related topics. -Thibbs (talk) 05:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• There is no policy stating that. Inclusion is determined based on policies and consensus. All policies have been met, it verifiable that this does exist, and no policies have been violated. Consensus is determined in the AFD discussion. A company is notable because of its works, just as a director or writer are notable for what they produce. Every single person related to a famous person is not notable simply because of that. See the difference? Dream Focus 08:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• Do you object only to have objected or do you actually have a goal in mind? You said "If nothing substantial can be found then I'd change my vote to merge. Deletion is unwarranted." I say "Wrong! If nothing substantial can be found, then the article does not merit inclusion at all and deletion is rightfully warranted." Now instead of turning AfD into a battlefield, please consider finding some solid source. If you require an example, I advise you to visit articles like Microsoft or Adobe Systems. Fleet Command (talk) 10:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

:::* But the sources you are using are trivial. You admit that above, although you qualify your admission with the "dilution" point which I'm hoping you can explain further in terms of how it gets around the "impossible to find a non-trivial source" problem. I think I see where you're coming from, I just don't see how it changes anything. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 08:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

::::*What I'm saying is that some of the sources I have linked are possibly trivial but only in relation to the specific topic of the article. That's not to say that there's nothing notable there, however, on a broader level. If some of the rest of the same source covers "Bobble Bath Babes," "Peek-A-Boo Poker," and "Hot Slots" as part of an on-the-whole non-trivial discussion then this favors a vote to merge, not to delete. -Thibbs (talk) 12:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

:::::*Ah! Okay, I understand, at least. That said, it doesn't change my view on this. My experience w/ the sources hasn't suggested that there is some broader notability when one combines the three articles at issue. But at least now we seem to be at an "agree to disagree" place on whether or not the coverage is trivial and/or reliable. Closing admin can evaluate. Thanks for the clarification on that. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Keep As an adult video game company, Panesian constitutes as one of the more eccentric moments of Nintendo history. Omitting this article from Wikipedia would be like exponging Venus de Milo from the Renassiance or the Vietnamese prostitutes from the Vietnam War. GVnayR (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
• Objection: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Personal point of view Fleet Command (talk) 04:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• That's an essay, anyone able to publish an essay saying whatever they want, including the opposite of that. Focus on policies, and trying to convince people of your viewpoint through reasoning, so that a consensus can be formed, and the fate of the article decided. Dream Focus 08:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• Do not play with words, Dream Focus. You best know that, regardless of what essay says, no article merits inclusion in Wikipedia because it "constitutes as one of the more eccentric moments". Beside, you best know that essays in Wikipedia namespace are actually very solid. This type of wordplay of yours have been used before. It is evident that you are not acting in good faith. Fleet Command (talk) 10:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• There no policy against regarding a notable event in time. Articles published recently, still mention this company and its games, both for they being among the first pornographic video games, as well as for how high a price they get from collectors. And I am not playing with words, just correcting your misconception that the essays hold any sway in things. If they had enough support they'd graduate to guideline status, and then to policy, which would be bounding. Some were formerly guidelines, but since most didn't support them, they got downgraded to personal essay status. All policies have been met, this verifiable, and most believing the coverage they get is enough to make them notable. Dream Focus 20:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• You said:

  There no policy against regarding a notable event in time.

  You are wrong! There is WP:NTEMP. Besides, the nominated article is not about an event in time. It is about a non-notable company.

  Articles published recently, still mention this company and its games, both for they being among the first pornographic video games, as well as for how high a price they get from collectors.

  It doesn't matter. The threshold for inclusion of the company in Wikipedia as an independent article is Notability which this article fails to prove, as required by WP:NRVE. You say that articles "mention" the company. Well, passing mention is not considered significant coverage, which is required by GNG.

  Fleet Command (talk) 12:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• Changing vote to Delete or Merge ...to Adult video games. I have made a similar change to my stance at the related Bubble Bath Babes and Peekaboo Poker articles (and the sooner I can stop having to type those amusing names out, the better ;). I am hopeful that a Merge is something that can be more amenable to everyone, and that it might be a way to find effective consensus. Panesian was clearly a company that created games within the category, and while I still fail to see sufficient reliably sourced non-trivial coverage of the company to justify an independent article, as I argue at the related AfD's I think the standards can fall back a bit if we merge the content into Adult video games. Then, situational sources, etc., work much better (situational sources are generally less reliable for notability concerns). I hope others might agree with this stance -- I think it's the proper middle ground. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• Merge any verifiable information, along with the two nominated games, to Adult video games, or to the yet-to-be-created Unlicensed video games. Marasmusine (talk) 09:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• Hmmm! Now you are talking Marasmusine. I believe I owe you an apology. Yes, I concur. Fleet Command (talk) 09:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge to Adult video games due to a lack of significant coverage in reliabe sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

: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.