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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy Interactive, Inc.[edit]

Fantasy Interactive, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Spamy article created by the company. Only has a single notable award, from .net magazine which is the only reliable source for the article. BJ^Talk 00:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and cleanup. Rebuild from scratch around that one reliable source. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete as an advert of a nn company. The awards don't seem notable. JJL (talk) 01:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and cleanup — Rewrite the article around the RS and try to look for more. I already found http://www.computerarts.co.uk/in_depth/interviews/fantasy_interactive to add. Try moving to remove the inc. suffix. Ipatrol (talk) 01:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I am finding some other sources: [1], [2], [3]. Can anyone translate from Swedish? [4] No detailed coverage though...most of that is just tangential mentions, not enough to establish notability. Does that one source on the page have detailed coverage? I can't read it but this would convince me to Keep rather than Weak Keep. Cazort (talk) 01:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete after seeing this seemingly-disrespectful edit from the company. Alexius08 (talk) 03:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Disrespectful"? It's common for newbies not to know how to react to cleanup tags; it's annoying, but not intentionally disrespectful. And we should never delete an article just to get revenge on an editor or company that miffed us. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By pointing out this edit you are making an argument for WP:Semiprotection, not deletion. The fact that a page is used for blatant advertisement by special interests is never in itself grounds for deletion. Otherwise we'd be deleting the pages on all major corporations! Cazort (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Did some cleanup. Article is still advert-y and the COI contributor is still concerning, but I've at least removed the most obvious instances of peacockery. Still needs more editing to remove bold claims if the sources don't back them up (I can't access or read all of them). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep And send to the Article Rescue Squadron. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per [5], and [6], who confirm that this company was indeed the "fastest-growing" Swedish company in 2006. Sources (sv:Svenskt Näringsliv, Dagens Industri) clearly satisfy WP:RS. decltype (talk) 02:59, 13 April 2009 (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.