Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Webfoot Technologies: Difference between revisions

Webfoot Technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not seeing sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG, let alone WP:NCORP. Many passing mentions e.g. [1] [2], but no WP:SIGCOV. No obvious merge target. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

University bio of Dana Dominiak suggests to that the company itself is not the notable part. Not sure of an alternative to deletion. IgelRM (talk) 23:25, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:GNG and WP:HEY. Sources added include “Raspberry Pi goes retro games crazy”, a 2016 article in Electronics Weekly; “Game Developers Who Redeemed Themselves”, a 2023 article in Game Rant; and the 2016 GameGrin article identified by nominator, “Webfoot Technologies Gauging Interest in New Legacy of Goku or Remake”, which I would argue is more than just a passing mention. Incidentally, the Webfoot developers have also branched out into other types of apps like Breast Self Exam, an app to track potential breast cancer, as discussed in this 2013 article in The Record. (That said, I regret prematurely moving this article to Webfoot Games.) Cielquiparle (talk) 15:21, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I greatly appreciate your work on this article! Unfortunately, this still looks short of the bar to me. GameGrin is listed as an unreliable source at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources, the Game Rant article is a listicle at a WP:VALNET site, and the The Record is a literal one-sentence mention (in passing). I can’t access the EBSCO link and I can’t find a copy of the March 2016 Electronics Weekly in their archives; if it’s an in-depth profile of the company and not just a brief mention of a Pi project they published, that might get us closer… Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 20:07, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge but unsure to which of their games as a candidate as it fails WP:NCORP. I guess I have a different standard of what constitutes a trivial mention, as other than TheGamer commenting on the quality of their output as a whole, most of these only briefly mention the studio itself in a sentence or two and focus mostly on their individual titles:

-Electronics Weekly: Dana Dominiak of Webfoot Games got in touch to tell us that they’re porting most of their catalogue to the Pi, with no fewer than 15 games and game packs already available for free. Webfoot intends to port all of its games to Pi, where licensing permits: “several per week for as long as there is interest”.

– GameGrin: Webfoot Technologies, the developer behind several of the Dragon Ball Z games on the Game Boy Advance amongst many others across multiple platforms, have been busy posting pictures to their Facebook page.

– Southtown Star: Lemont is home to Webfoot Technologies Inc., a computer game developer.

– The Record” Webfoot Technologies Inc., a co-owner, made the app, which is patent pending.

I don’t think the above is sufficient secondary information to reliably verify and substantiate the notability of the studio as opposed to their works. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:04, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They developed numerous games, I don’t think there is a single primary target here. WP is not a games database. IgelRM (talk) 05:02, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that’s absolutely fair. No objections to delete at all. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:46, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. There is consensus that the Webfoot games as a group are notable, in light of the existence of significant coverage in secondary sources, so per WP:NLIST a rather straightforward solution would be to rename this article to something like List of games developed by Webfoot Technologies or List of Webfoot games, rather than merging and redirecting to a specific title. Cielquiparle (talk) 22:11, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I’m not sure I follow you there – is there consensus that the Webfoot games as a group are notable? Most don’t have pages and there’s no sources I see that suggest there’s any reliable secondary source of basic information about which games were published, what their release date was, and so on. That makes meeting WP:NLIST not so straightforward. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:45, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I wouldn’t object much to this. Our standards for list articles are way lower, so the lack of SIGCOV wouldn’t concern me as much. I do think it’s a stretch to claim this group meets WP:NLIST. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 17:20, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]