Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red 5 Studios

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 keep. John254 00:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red 5 Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article was a crystal ball back in February 2006, and their project still doesn't have a name. Page should be recreated after the company establishes itself. Burzmali 00:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't know... read this relatively recent Wall Street Journal article: http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118071923725321635.html?mod=sblink_past_reports Ichormosquito 01:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep based on the Wall Street Journal story... needs another source, really. -FisherQueen (Talk) 01:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per FisherQueen and the WSJ article. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 01:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I hadn't found that article, but an article about a company's innovative hiring practices doesn't exactly satisfy WP:N, never mind WP:CRYSTAL. So how can an article be about a company, when the only reliable, significant information is about their hiring practices? Burzmali 01:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unfortunately there are a few things to note. First, there must be MULTIPLE (i.e. More than just the WSJ article) sources, which there are not from my google and dogpile searches. Also, the article is about their hiring practices but does not discuss the company in detail. We can't keep an article that only has one shakey source --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 07:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. JACOPLANE • 2007-09-12 13:21
• Comment, I started this article some time ago. The reason I thought that it was notable at the time was because the founders are notable: "Founded in September 2005 by key members behind Blizzard Entertainment's World of WarCraft, including Team Lead Mark Kern, Art Director William Petras, and co-founder of Blizzard Korea Taewon Yun". The Team Lead and Arti Director of such a massive game as World of Warcraft are notable IMO. Some more links: IGN page for untitled project, IGN article, IGN article, GamaSutra article, GamesIndustry.biz article, TechCrunch blog post. Also see the MobyGames entries for the founders: Mark Kern, William Petras, Taewon Yun. JACOPLANE • 2007-09-12 13:21
• Keep the article, although it needs to be worked a bit, but I still recommend you keep it, or else someone will just end up remaking it when they see Red 5 Studio's newest creation isn't mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elven6 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. $18 million venture funding, well-known founders from major company in field, significant reliable coverage in media. For Wikipedia to have encyclopedic coverage in the field of technology start-up companies it has to describe the companies involved. What else do you want, a letter from the pope?Wikidemo 22:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Anything notable to show for all that would be nice. Even the name of their product and a tentative release date would help. Burzmali 23:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of articles about untitled projects that are notable. IMO the fact that the team leader of the World of Warcraft design team founded this company should end the notability discussion. JACOPLANE • 2007-09-12 23:19

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS does not justify keeping an article, and notability is not inherited (even if it were Rob Pardo, Jeff Kaplan, and Tom Chilton are listed as the designers of World of Warcraft, and Mark Kern doesn't even rate a mention in the page.) Burzmali 00:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that because the Wikipedia entry on "World of Warcraft" does not mention the team leader and art director, those people are not notable? Interesting perspective. JACOPLANE • 2007-09-13 00:38

The tone of this comment is not correct. If it comes off as condescending because of my bad attempt at sarcasm, I apologise. You're quite right that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS should not be an argument for notability. Mainly I feel that this article is bound to eventually meet the notability guidelines, so deleting now serves little purpose, even if it tends towards WP:CRYSTAL. I tend to stay out of AfD discussions since I don't agree with the notability guidelines and am a fundamentalist inclusionist, so please take everything I say with a grain of salt. JACOPLANE • 2007-09-13 00:56

No offense taken, but this article, as 3 others I nominated at the same time, all seem to be trying to ride Blizzard coattails to notability (see Blizzard Entertainment#Former employees for my hitlist), before they have even announced their projects. Burzmali 01:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per wikidemo. Burzmali's response makes me wonder since when having announced a product is a requirement for a company to be notable. WP:CORP certainly does not read that the "name of the product and a tentative release date" is required. User:Krator (t c) 12:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Never said that was the only way to be notable, but for a random technology start up it helps. At the end of the day, they have no product, their only coverage of them in the media is focused on their start up and connection to Blizzard, and their publisher, Webzen, is/was a one hit wonder. I'm sure that Red 5 is determined to achieve something, and when they do, I'll be the first to recreate the article. Burzmali 13:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  This is far from a 'random' startup. SashaNein 14:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  So, show me that it isn't. So far the !vote for keep center around

  1. Red 5 got Getting 18 million in start up capital: Well that isn't all that unique and certainly doesn't pass WP:CORP.

  2. The WSJ article: Launching a massive HR blitz to poach developers from other companies will get your name in the papers, but that's one event.

  3. The Blizzard connection: As always notability is not inherited, and having employees that are notable does get you passed WP:CORP.

  4. Publishing deal with Webzen: Webzen is notable for their one hit Mu Online, but their follow-up seems to have stalled, and their website reports that "in-development" games are going to be released in 2006. Furthermore, I can't find any WP:RS reporting on the publishing deal, only gaming site posting the press release. Burzmali 14:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Achievement is not a prerequisite for notability; the WSJ article and connection to Blizzard are enough to establish it. — brighterorange (talk) 13:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Their notability will grow with time, and I think they are just notable enough to have their own article. Judgesurreal777 20:25, 15 September 2007 (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.