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.
As per the rationale on the talk page, the most that we could gather about the company is from internet memes, anecdotes on blogs about the publisher's games being of dubious quality and the like. So far Phoenix's shoestring business model has led to them being all but ignored by the mainstream gaming press like Kotaku or IGN - unless if they take a gander at the games, and if the said articles receive a lot of attention, I'd say we should have this one deleted for now.
Blake Gripling (
talk)
08:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. As the one mentioned from the talk page, I'm copying my response here for posterity:
I don't think this topic meets the
general notability guideline. These are the best sources I was able to find:
[1][2]—both cover the company but don't have nearly enough to write a full article about the company. There are also passing mentions in:
[3][4][5] and some product announcements:
[6][7][8]. The quick synopsis of the previous links is that the company is known for
shovelware and is briefly lambasted for it in listicles, and the name also shows in some press release-y product announcements for games that do not have enough coverage for even their own sections in a parent article. I wanted to check if anyone had additional sourcing before I take this to AfD. czar
♔ 14:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Missed this link from the previous AfD:
[9]. Still don't think it's enough—the srcs are mainly to disparage the dev and give little to no info to base an encyclopedia article. czar
♔09:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)reply
KYM is indeed unreliable (user-submitted), and I'm almost entirely sure that my link 8 is Phoenix. I believe they had a Malaysian branch, and this would be it. czar
♔03:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Unless if major gaming websites take notice of the company or the memes that spawned from their games (see
Final Fantasy VII for the Famicom), this would indeed, as one editor put it, be mired in obscurity. Phoenix skimped on marketing their games, hence why most news sites were practically unaware or turned a blind eye on them.
Blake Gripling (
talk)
23:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. The only reason I created one of the company's video games, Animal Soccer World, was because I thought it had enough sources to meet the GNG guidelines. Not the company that made this game. And although Animal Soccer World was merged into this article, I still believe this company fails the GNG guidelines.
good888 (
talk)
16:31, 17 October 2014 (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.