Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vertical Slice games research
=[[Vertical Slice games research]]=
:{{la|Vertical Slice games research}} – (
:({{findsources|Vertical Slice games research}})
No or few outside sources to verify its information, and does not appear to have a big enough client base to be notable. Possibly fails WP:SPIP Howan (talk) 17:13, 31 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:Vertical Slice games research}} Search video game sources])}} • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, fails WP:CORP. I guess being discussed in an online article from www.eurogamer.net is better than nothing, but it does not amount to "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources," and I can't find anything else out there that would. Glenfarclas (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Non notable start up company. May have been liquidated already who knows or cares. Szzuk (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. The company has dozens of major clients including 3 of the top 5 publishers in the world, but cannot disclose them on Wikipedia due to NDAs. There are also myriad references and coverage of the company, I just didn't want to create the whole article myself. This month for example, Develop and MCV magazine have a feature on Vertical Slice including an interview with their company director and they are appearing in Edge magazine in July. Their director also spoke at GDC2010 in California last month and has other keynote speeches lined up later in the year. I don't know enough about the company to expand much on their explicit activities, but I am aware of some of their work (and I am loosely affiliated with them). Perhaps they are too small to be on Wikipedia in terms of revenue (I have no idea how much it is), but in terms of significance they hold a fairly notable role in the games industry. I guess you guys have been on here longer though, so I'm not going to argue this unitl the bitter end. I can try and find more references if necessary. Maybe it should be noted that I do know one of the employees of the company and have been to their offices, but I am not trying to plug their products or anything. Zebedee88 (talk) 10:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Some references of notability - me again, sorry. Thought I would show some of the coverage so you wouldn't have to look. I don't know what the protocol for presenting this is, so I'll just list them plainly
- transcript of their DevDays talk = http://www.slideshare.net/guest7e5c7c1/devdays-games-ux-talk
- a mention on a UX site (blog?)= http://www.stevebromley.com/blog/2009/12/17/how-real-world-game-usability-testing-is-changing/
- partial online excerpt from a Develop feature (print mag) = http://www.develop-online.net/features/838/Power-to-the-people-test
- another mention? = http://openux.co.kr/?mid=open_gblog&page=3&document_srl=5763
- on the Gamespot podcast next month apparently
- more coverage (The Escapist and Kotaku - two big games coverage sites) on the review score thing, though I wouldn't say this is a particularly good thing, judging by the comments =
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/94490-Company-Predicts-Game-Review-Scores-With-Science
http://www.kotaku.com.au/2009/09/company-says-it-can-predict-review-scores-a-year-in-advance/
- University of Sussex website features them in a profile thing = http://www.sussex.ac.uk/research/review2009/digitalsocialmedia.php
- dont know what this is (some game-academic site?) = http://www.acagamic.com/specials/advent-2009/21-game-user-research-making-games-better/
again, I'm not 100% sure what constitutes as notable, so if it is still not notorious enough in your eyes, then I guess I agree with the deletion. Zebedee88 (talk) 10:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. I've just read the provided links and unfortunately they don't confer notability. They demonstrate the company exists and is doing a worthwhile job. But most companies are worthwhile and wikipedia can't be a repository for the tens of millions of such companies in the world. Notability is hard to explain simply however I can give you an example, I work for a company with 16,000 employees. It doesn't have a page on wiki, I guess because making baked bean cans and milk cartons is very low key and mundane. A company the size of vertical slice has to be doing something extraordinary or newsworthy on a national scale to be notable. Szzuk (talk) 12:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Concede? Yes OK, I was aware that I didn't totally appreciate the WP:CORP fully, so thanks for clearing that up. I suppose I have no other cause for this company meriting its own Wikipedia page, other than its relative importance in the admittedly small field of UX/games. According to your reasoning, this should be deleted and I have no further cause to dispute that :) Zebedee88 (talk) 14:28, 1 April 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.