Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The GOAT Store

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 delete . The arguments and sources provided by keep !voters do not sufficiently establish notability. lifebaka++ 14:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The GOAT Store

The GOAT Store (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Contested prod. fails WP:CORP. non notable games company. no reliable secondary references. Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This company is pretty much unknown. Their website is more of an online store than the development studio/publishing house this article purports. (I am not disputing that they have published games.) With only two employees, and one source outside their own website (which is a third-tier gaming blog), I would say this is worthy of a deletion. Checking established video game news sources, such as IGN.com or Gamespot reveal only the most passing of references. Addionne (talk) 12:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, they have a publishing related page set up here. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I said, I am not disputing that they have published games, I just feel they are not notable for that alone. Addionne (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This company has released some of the most notable Dreamcast game. This article is really important! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.13.147.83 (talk) 20:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Disagree it fails, they are a licensed developer of Dreamcast games by Sega, they have one of their published games moving to the Nintendo DS as is referenced, they do have an IGN entry, a Moby Games entry, they're also very notable as chief supporter of the Midwest Gaming Classic. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not sure sponsoring an event would count - especially one who's Wiki article is arguably failing notability itself. As for MobyGames, it is user-generated content, and though it makes for a great secondary resource for information, but not much of a reputable source under WP:N. The IGN listing does not provide much information other than confirming its existence. Addionne (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I may be biased as I help run a game news site (that covers Dreamcast news), But the fact they have publish 4 games and they clam to have more games to be published notable. They are also well know within the Dreamcast "scene".
  • Delete - Publishing homebrewed games doesn't make you notable, also it looks like Cool Herders never got ported to the DS. It was supposed to have occured a year ago, and yet it still isn't available anywhere. They are "listed" on web sites, but have no significant coverage so fail WP:N and WP:CORP unless other evidence is given to the contrary. -- Atamachat 17:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, they're not "homebrewed games", the games were/are published under license from Sega. Feel free to call Sega and ask, or contact the publishing company for verification. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How does being published by Sega change how the games were developed? You're also nitpicking a small point while avoiding the real question; how does this satisfy notability? Nobody has given a satisfactory answer. Being published by Sega doesn't make a game notable. -- Atamachat 20:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very simply because having a licensed Sega game is not a trivial process, nor is publishing on any game console for that matter - publishers have to go through various checks and balances and then be given the final approval by the console manufacturer. If you're not in the game industry, I can understand how you wouldn't be aware of the licensing process involved in being able to officially publish on a platform. Whether the games were developed by a large studio or small independent one, its still the same publishing process. Likewise, they're notable alone for being one of the last (if not the last) publishers releasing official games for the console in the market after its discontinuation. There's no nitpicking, and it appears nothing is going to give a satisfactory answer to someone who has a chip on their shoulder about what's of value for measuring and what's not. I haven't seen you convincingly state why these things do not make them notable yet either, other than stating personal opinion. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 23:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no chip on my shoulder aside from wanting to follow Wikipedia guidelines. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." This hasn't been shown yet. Your idea of what constitutes notability does not match what is in WP:N. And please hold off such comments as "chip on their shoulder", let's keep this civil thank you. -- Atamachat 00:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've never wrote anything before, but I was browsing all independent games and saw this so I thought I would try. From what I have read, according to the standards of Notability, this company would be notable based on the fact that their games are listed on a number of web sites with reference to the official releases for the Dreamcast in the United States. If this entry is removed, it calls into question all of the entries in the Independently Developed Dreamcast Games, as they would all fail notability for the same reason. And, if all of the Independently Developed Dreamcast Games entries are removed, it would call into question a lot of the other games released for earlier consoles, such as the Panesian NES games which is where I started my reading tonight. I was looking for games not made by the original manufacturers, but were still considered complete releases. Many of these games may not be famous or even well known, but the fact that they were produced in a different way to standard releases makes them more notable for the sake of history than many of the standard releases, as not many consoles experienced such releases, so I vote for keep unless it is determined that no independent releases would ever be notable, which I think many people would disagree with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D3l8 (talk • contribs) 06:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC) — D3l8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Comment - The fact that other stuff exists is usually not a good reason to keep an article, just FYI. And again, merely being listed on web sites isn't sufficient for notability. You make an unusual argument that something is notable because it is obscure, that's one I've never heard before. Also, I'd like to point out that my prediction of anonymous people showing up just to defend these articles because of off-site canvassing is coming true. -- Atamachat 15:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - While I understand what you're saying, the exact article you reference states, "If someone were, as part of their reasoning for keep, to say that every other main character in Star Wars has an article, this may well be a valid point. In this manner, using an "Other Stuff Exists" angle provides for consistency." For consistency, the Dreamcast also has List_of_commercially_released_independently_developed_Dreamcast_games, and after doing more searching last night, every single Dreamcast independent release that I could find was on this list, but only the Cool Herders entry and this one were up for deletion. I would understand the notability reasoning if all articles were up for deletion, but deleting only random ones would be inconsistent according to the Wikipedia policy. I don't understand your off-site canvassing comment, as I was looking to find out more information abut these games yesterday and found these pages through that search. I just thought I could add something to the comment that as a collector I think is legit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D3l8 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC) — D3l8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep - I'm more than a little surprised that this debate has even come up. Speaking from strictly a development point of view, GOAT Store, and with it GOAT Store Publishing, is one of the main reasons the Dreamcast indie development scene took off in the first place. They were largely responsible for helping to keep Feet of Fury on pace for release with the game's developer, and while it may not float everyone's boat, Cryptic Allusion's work on that game helped lead to a "completed" KallistiOS tool that has been used by nearly every Dreamcast developer since. Those tools helped build the three other GOAT Store Publishing releases and also powered the last indie Dreamcast release, Last Hope, although that game's publisher/developers wrongfully did not cite KallistiOS in their game or packaging. Second, from a game collector's point of view, the fact that GOAT Store Publishing was able to successfully release four decent games so close to a system's official abandonment is quite remarkable. All in all it isn't to say that the Dreamcast development scene wouldn't have been around without GOAT Store Publishing - it does after all pre-date GOAT Store Publishing's direct involvement - but it is safe to say that the development scene wouldn't have gone as far as it did without GOAT Store Publishing, and every indie game released on the Dreamcast owes GOAT Store Publishing some debt of gratitude. By all means, keep this listening.--DHG Hunter (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)— DHG Hunter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Comment - Is any of this backed up by reliable sources or is this original research? And just an FYI, since you are new (in fact this Keep vote is your only contribution to Wikipedia), something of interest primarily or solely to a small group of people is usually not suitable for Wikipedia. -- Atamachat 04:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - I covered the indie Dreamcast development scene from its infancy with online gaming media and blogs a few years ago. Some of my work was later picked up on sites such as Joystiq, and although the article they link to is unfortunately no longer active, it can still be found on Archive.org. So yes, you may say I have had original, reliable information on this subject. Without GOAT Store Publishing, the Dreamcast indie development scene would never have taken off like it did.--DHG Hunter (talk) 22:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)— DHG Hunter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment - I would like to add on the subject of notability, Gamautra (which is listed as a reliable source WP:VG/S ) have a interview with GOAT Store published here Darksaviour69 (talk) 20:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)— Darksavior69 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:CORP and comapany is not trustful - annouced 16 titles and none of them was released. 91.89.109.219 (talk) 20:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - An interview with Gamasutra is rather notable, and as has been stated above, they are one of the most prolific developers of indie games for the Dreamcast. And how is getting published by Sega, one of the largest game publishers in the world, not notable? Also, simply because they have announced titles that have not been released yet does not mean that they are untrustworthy - Major companies announce games and end up canceling them or, in the notable case of Duke Nukem Forever, went YEARS without talking about them. Unreleased announced games is not a valid reason for deletion. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 20:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Published by Sega and published under license by Sega are two very different things. Addionne (talk) 21:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per insufficient reliable sources about the company in the article or in this discussion here here that that could attest what has been claimed above. Release lists and interviews don't really cut it. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:10, 5 August 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_GOAT_Store&oldid=1138841620"