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. MBisanz ^talk 02:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bézier Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Delete for non-notability. This is not Maxis. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to know that a new user gets a whole 15 minutes before their page is put up for deletion... --Craw-daddy | T | 21:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by that, and how is that constructive to the debate at hand? Arbiteroftruth (talk) 21:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - New article from a new editor, and kudos to Craw-daddy for digging up some sources. BOZ (talk) 21:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now per WP:CHANCE. MuZemike (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 21:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- I am still not convinced that we have proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that these games appeal to a broad audience, instead of a group of ten in the middle of the Death Valley (figuratively speaking). Also, these games are not Monopoly, and they are not documented anywhere else. In addition, WP:CHANCE is only an essay, and citing that as if it is a rule is invalid. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 22:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, but isn't what you pointed out WP:ONLYESSAY? Let me clarify the point from that essay in the context of this AfD: the nomination was too hasty in bringing the article to AfD, especially without considering other options as recommended in WP:AFD. I also hate to bring it up as I admittedly have also been guilty of the same such crime rather recently, but the nom seems a trifle WP:BITEy in nature as a result of the short-order AfD. MuZemike (talk) 06:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I admit, this might be borderline bitey. However, I could have simply nominated this page with a CSD procedure. I am taking this to AfD because I want to see what everyone thinks. To be honest, the "sources" cited merely refers to the game, and does not talk about the company (unless I am missing something here). The games themselves are borderline notable (at best, after five bottles of wine), and I am still unconvinced that this company is anywhere near Hasbros or their notable likes.. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 07:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, as we all know, popularity is not the same thing as notability. What artificial number are you looking to satisfy? (The players of these games play them precisely because they aren't Monopoly (as that's really a terrible game, but this is besides the point)). --Craw-daddy | T | 22:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't need a number, I need some concrete sources that this company is even worth mentioning here. At the present state, I don't think this company is notable. Pure and simple. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 07:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. We definitely don't have any guidelines for board games, but given that Age of Steam ranks #11 on boardgamegeek [1], I'd say the publisher is notable. VG ☎ 14:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually there is WP:TOYS but it's only proposed. Percy Snoodle (talk) 21:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets general notability standards, and is well referenced. Owen× ☎ 15:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 18:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep sufficient refs on there to meet WP:N, and there's more coverage on BGN every so often. Percy Snoodle (talk) 21:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and I request the nominator gives new editors some more time next time. You have every right to nominate things for deletion, but 15 minutes is beyond any standard. User:Krator (t c) 09:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments- The "references" to this company's notability is non-existent. They attest to the existence of the games they made, but not the company, and whether or not the games themselves are notable are seriously in question here. I don't think the sources here prove that this company is notable at all. It exists, no doubt, but is it notable? I think not. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 07:56, 11 October 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.