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 no consensus. Protonk (talk) 00:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Offset Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Contested speedy, db-spam. The problems with the article are primary sources only, no external assertion of notability and one product to be yet released. I believe it was a reasonable speedy but I might have been wrong. Thank you for your reconsideration. Tone 21:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 03:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Notability has been established if you read the article, assertion of notability is established. I have no clue what you want from it other then what is already there. And it was speedy deleted on the grounds of it being "blatant advertising" which it's not. Havok (T/C/e/c) 13:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:CRYSTAL? May be notable in the future, but the article says that at this time they haven't made a single game. Getting on AOTS and having some barely famous founders isn't deserving of an article.--Koji† 14:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It seems dubious that a game company founded in 2004 has yet to release a single game. And they've been bought by Intel this year, so it's totally unclear that they will ever release anything. Also, all the references in the article are primary sources associated with the company. I'd say it fails WP:CORP and WP:CRYSTAL. VG ☎ 15:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:CRYSTAL says nothing of the sort. The policy is there to define rumors, this is not a rumor. And even defining crystal as a reason as this is a "company" not a "product" is silly. The company very much exists. I have added reliable sources to the sections which used primary sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Havok (talk • contribs)

User:Havok seems to have "retired" a year ago, in a storm of disparaging remarks about Wikipedia [1]. VG ☎ 22:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And on which planet does this have anything to do with the AFD? Havok (T/C/e/c) 13:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's misleading information. You should remove the message unless you plan to actually retire, besides that, (see my note to delete below, I am putting this here as I have more to say). Secondly, what does this have to do with an AFD you ask? Well, this account that claims to have retired, and is yet still editing could be signs of a compromised account, and should therefore be blocked.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 11:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you think my account has been compromised, then by all means, report me to the administration. Havok (T/C/e/c) 18:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that retirement and vanishing are two different things, just in case anyone thinks the two are the same. MuZemike (talk) 21:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There is no notability established for the article, and just because someone notable works there, does not make the company notable, neither does being bought out by Intel, please read WP:NOTINHERITED.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 10:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - Performing a quick web search shows that coverage of the sort required by WP:N appears to be all related to the Intel aquisition. This is rather WP:1E-ish but I'll give the benefit of the doubt due to their IGF nomination. Marasmusine (talk) 21:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that's the case, a merge & redirect with Intel would suffice, right? If all of the notability centers around the Intel acquisition, it can be easily covered in a sentence or two in that article.--Koji† 21:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The prize was won by the previous employer of the founders; the mention of the award in this article is just WP:COATRACK. Also, there is no depth of coverage whatsoever about the company or its only product, which didn't even ship, let alone win any awards. The only mentions in the specialized press are trivial in relation to Intel's acquisition of this company. VG ☎ 21:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Also looking at http://www.projectoffset.com/team.php shows a lot of new staff members compared to their pre-Intel days. xedaf (talk) 00:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the coverage about the company is simply that it got bought. That's really being known for one event. There's no coverage about the company and it has yet to release a single product. The award is not one that was given to this company, but rather for previous work for a different company by the founders of the company. -- Whpq (talk) 12:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A stubby article for a stubby company but no reason to delete. Notability is somewhat borderline but as a company important enough for Intel to acquire certainly suggests notability. Sources also need to be added but they too exist. -- Banjeboi 03:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but consider merge - passes the notability requirement, because it's obviously a big acquisition for Intel with coverage of that in the news. That said, a merge might be appropriate to an article on Intel or something like that. The article is pretty stubby, and small companies that get bought out may not get much more coverage to build a real article. Discuss a merge, but later. Randomran (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - It is not at all "obviously a big aquisition for Intel". The only news I found were in gaming related publications. These cover the gaming niche and so the acquisition of any gaming company would rightly get an article there. But I see no coverage at all in any mainstream or business press. In other words, the level of coverage is actually not very substantial, and exists only because of the acquisition. I fail to see how this overcomes being just a news event. -- Whpq (talk) 20:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep, consider merge - If push come to shove, I think it should be merged. If we can find any more infomation about the company, (e.g. any game that have been missed), then we should keep it. It seems that this "project offset" might be a big thing for them. Skullbird11 (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - A search has been conducted and turned up only the information about the acquisition by Intel. And there isn't likely much more to be written about it as they have not released any games. As for the speculation that this "might be big for them", articles aren't kept on speculation. There's no indication that that this is a big deal as I noted in a pervious comment as there are only a few gaming related publications that covered the acquisition. If it were potentially a big thing, the financial press would have some coverage as it would be material to Intel's potential future earnings. -- Whpq (talk) 20:48, 5 November 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.