Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Issaries, Inc.

Issaries, Inc.

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Issaries, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Article on a defunct corporation has zero references (a link purporting to be a reference is actually its defunct homepage). A standard BEFORE (Google News, Google Books, JSTOR, newspapers.com) finds only one passing mention. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 21:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:20, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:20, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• Keep or merge to Greg Stafford. I may not have the time today, but there is a whole chapter on the company in Designers & Dragons that I can pull from. BOZ (talk) 21:37, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - the chapter in Volume 4 of Designers & Dragons is pp. 53-68, and is dedicated entirely to Issaries. The company was also discussed in other reliable sources such as "Dragons in the stacks: An introduction to role‐playing games and their value to libraries", Volume 2 of Pyramid and Geeknative, exemplified by this article and this one.

A foolish nomination; the nominator should review WP:NOTTEMPORARY as well as WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Also, quite tactless to place the nomination so soon after Greg Stafford's death but I will AGF regardless, as is required. Still, speedy keep, please. Newimpartial (talk) 22:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The two links you provided to articles on "geeknative.com" - per the About page, it is "a blog for gamers" [1]. It lists only a single writer (Andrew Girdwood), and a quick run of it through Google News finds that its reporting has not, itself, been referenced by unambiguously RS sources. Finally, it has no published offline presence, such as a physical address, that it could accept liability for its content. By every possible definition, it is a personal hobby blog, WP:RSSELF applies, and it is not RS. The Designers & Dragons reference is fine - I suppose - however, companies require significant coverage. Mere proof that a company exists (or existed) is not evidence of notability. Chetsford (talk) 06:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

• I can understand the nomination, but it sounds like the sources are there and fairly solid. Withdraw maybe? Hobit (talk) 03:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Hobit - I appreciate the suggestion, but I would dispute that a reference in a single book meets our standards of significant coverage for profitmaking companies. The two mentions on "geeknative.com" are not, in my opinion, anywhere in the the same galaxy as RS. If this were submitted, tomorrow, as a new article to AFC it would have a roughly zero chance of making it through. (For instance, here's a company article that was correctly rejected by both KylieTastic and Curb Safe Charmer; with coverage in TechCrunch and Bloomberg it is more thoroughly referenced and the subject of more expansive coverage than this article but this still - quite rightly - does not meet the community's commonly held criteria of what constitutes significant coverage for an organization. As of now we only have proof that this organization may have existed. That is a different standard than whether it is "notable" (i.e. prominent, worthy of note or widespread acclaim). Chetsford (talk) 06:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)