Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Level Up! Games

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. Michig (talk) 07:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Level Up! Games

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:CORP. The article is wholly unsourced, it looks like an advertisment. Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 00:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw I would like to withdraw this nomination for deletion due to the article's improvement and to the reasons and statements presented by the participants in this nom. Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 09:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has a couple of sources now, but they don't do much for me. It still doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP, and it looks a bit too muck like an advertisement to me as well. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak ~~delete~~ keep. Fails WP:COMPANY as it is. It's possible that this is a notable regional SE Asian distributor though. But it needs more refs. I was able to find [1] [2] [3]. There's probably more. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed !vote per extra sources found below. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Tijfo098 15:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Keep Please look at the Google news archive results for a moment before trying to delete an article. MMOSITE says they are the NO.1 game publisher in Philippines. [4] Other news coverage in reliable sources exist. Dream Focus 15:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MMOsite is listed as unreliable at WP:VG/S. czar · · 17:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two people had a brief discussion two years ago and said they both felt it was unreliable. [5] 63 articles currently reference it though. [6] So a lot more editors find it reliable I suppose. Dream Focus 23:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, more realistically, 63 articles were never source-checked, right? Because no one has challenged their determination. Textbook WP:UNRELIABLE czar · · 01:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) czar · · 17:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ORG and GNG. They carry some known brands, but notability is not inherited. Unless someone can pull foreign language RS that I can't find, I'm afraid there's little hope for notability backup here. czar · · 17:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am surprised by this nomination. Their games are all over the place, and all over the world. Article should be renamed to Level Up International, which is the current name of the company. So, what kind of references are actually out there? [7] - Level Up listed as top Philippine website - before you discount the blog, you might want to read who this guy is. [8] interview with CEO (and ton more articles about LU on the site), [9]. [10] fortinet case study, [11] about the company (not 3rd party). The problem I am experiencing is the extremely common usage of "level up" found on the internet. [12] securities regulatory report, [13] more companies buying parts of it out, etc. There is a TON of articles out there. They do require some digging because 1) the company is based in Philippines, and 2) the name is exceptionally common. Turlo Lomon (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read "who the guy is"—am I missing something? None of those sources are listed as reliable. At the very least, they need individual discussions before they're counted as establishing notability. It's missing all WP:CORPDEPTH. czar · · 16:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I was referring to "He’s also a guest blogger at GMANews.tv and included in T3 Magazine‘s list of influential people in the Philippine techbiz." If an award winning news station has him as a guest, and an international magazine says we should listen to him - then maybe we should. YugaTech is already established as a WP:RS. Turlo Lomon (talk) 13:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Turlo Lomon's findings. Given the immense business impact of online games and the issue with finding sources under the correct business names this seems to be more of a clean-up issue. Insomesia (talk) 10:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Turlo. Although some portions of the text appear to be marketing Hyperbole, e.g. "With nearly eight years and a pioneer in the market, The Level Up! Games Brazil (sometimes abbreviated as LUG! Brazil) has...". I'd like to see these parts rewritten or removed to bring it back to WP:NPOV. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 12:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename to Level Up! International. I've added some cites from three major Philippine newspapers to show notability in the Philippines.--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although I can edit the Philippine part of the article, I really have difficulty in accessing Brazilian cites. Any help from our Portuguese-speaking editors would be quite helpful.--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move to Level Up! International, as that's the company's current name. Plenty of significant coverage in reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:04, 25 October 2012 (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.