Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massively fun

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 delete--Ymblanter (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Massively fun

(Find video game sources: "Massively fun" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

It is possible that one or morte of their games might be notable, but I do not think there is yet evidence for the notability of the company DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 01:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 01:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Not yet. There are only two independent sources cited, and the second (the TechCrunch article) doesn't mention the company. I think this one will become notable in short time, but as of now there doesn't seem enough out there to pass GNG. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not passing WP:GNG with multiple reliable independent in-depth sources, such as as WP:VG/RS. The two reliable sources in the article are good, but their subject is not the company, rather their game and their platform. I see many passing mentions of the company, mostly in context of their games, but nothing that covers the company itself. P.S. Their games might actually be notable (although it doesn't seem we have their articles), although this doesn't matter much as notability is not inherited. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:25, 14 December 2013 (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.