Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Data Design Interactive (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Based on the discussion and source analyses here, it appears that the sources presented have not convinced most participants that they are adequate, mostly due to substantiality concerns. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Data Design Interactive

[edit]
AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Data Design Interactive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find video game sources: "Data Design Interactive" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Unnotable defunct company commonly known for making bad games, thus making future coverage unlikely. The only real source directly concerning the studio refers to the opening of another unnotable office in the U.S.. An older discussion from 2010 opted to keep this revision for some reason, despite being almost entirely unsourced, and not at all about the article's topic. Lordtobi (✉) 07:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Lordtobi (✉) 07:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lordtobi (✉) 07:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Younghusband, Paul (2001-02-01). "A One Stop Digital Shop: Data Design Interactive and Artworld UK". Animation World Network. Archived from the original on 2019-05-27. Retrieved 2019-05-27.
    2. "Worst Reviewed Nintendo Console Games". IGN. 2000-10-31. Archived from the original on 2019-05-27. Retrieved 2019-05-27.
    3. Thomas, Lucas M. (2009-08-14). "Cheers & Tears: The Wii's Sports of Games". IGN. Archived from the original on 2019-05-27. Retrieved 2019-05-27.
    4. Thomas, Lucas M. (2009-02-11). "Action Girlz Racing Review". IGN. Archived from the original on 2013-01-03. Retrieved 2019-05-27.
    5. Fox, Tanner (2018-08-20). "30 Crazy Bad Video Games With (Almost) 0% On Metacritic". The Gamer. Archived from the original on 2019-05-27. Retrieved 2019-05-27.
    6. Savino, Candace (2008-01-03). "Shovelware: A cause and effect". Engadget. Archived from the original on 2019-05-27. Retrieved 2019-05-27.
    Sources with quotes
    1. Younghusband, Paul (2001-02-01). "A One Stop Digital Shop: Data Design Interactive and Artworld UK". Animation World Network. Archived from the original on 2019-05-27. Retrieved 2019-05-27.

      The article notes:

      For around 18 years Birmingham-based Data Design Interactive has been churning out top-notch games for some of the industry's most prestigious publishers. Working for Sony, Millennium, PSS, Psygnosis, Ocean and Infogrames on projects such as Pegasus Bridge, ROBOCOD, Rise of the Robots and Water World to name a few, Data Design has earned a reputation as one of the UK's top games developers. Their experience developing for the Spectrum, Amstrad, Amiga, Game Boy, PC, Sega Megadrive and, of course, the Playstation, put them in the perfect position to take advantage of the games industry's soaring popularity. But as we found out, the folks at Data Design have more than video games on their mind...

    2. "Worst Reviewed Nintendo Console Games". IGN. 2000-10-31. Archived from the original on 2019-05-27. Retrieved 2019-05-27.

      The article notes:

      The Kidz Sports Series -- Kidz Sports: Basketball, Hockey, and International Soccer

      Developer: Data Design Interactive
      Publisher: Bold Games
      Year: 2008
      Score: 1.0

      The sad thing about really terrible games is that, more often than not, they're marketed towards children. It adds insult to injury when the general consensus of the industry seems to be that children don't deserve good games. Developer Data Design Interactive made not one, but three horrendously bad sports games geared towards youngsters. The graphics looked 10 years old, the gameplay was slow, the AI acted like they didn't even know how to play the game. The motion controls were so glitchy that it was hard to actually perform any of the moves. And on top of everything, the three games were nearly identical, despite these three sports being very different.

      Honorable Mention
      The rest of Data Design Interactive's Library
      Scores: 1.0-3.0

      Okay, we don't mean this to be mean, but maybe it's time Data Design Interactive stopped making Wii games. We've never seen a developer that spit out so many consistently awful titles in such a short time. Nearly every game we've reviewed under a 3.0 has come from this developer. That is just incredible.

    3. Thomas, Lucas M. (2009-08-14). "Cheers & Tears: The Wii's Sports of Games". IGN. Archived from the original on 2019-05-27. Retrieved 2019-05-27.

      The article notes:

      Wrapping it up this week is, as expected, a representative from our good friends over at Data Design Interactive. You've got to hand it to those guys -- they don't just suck in one genre. They spread the wealth around, ensuring that they've earned the lowest ratings possible in every single category of gaming there is. For sports sims, look no further than the Kidz Sports series to find the lowest-rung, most bottom-of-the-barrel sports games possible on the Wii.

      And, yes, I didn't mistype there -- it's a whole series. Basketball, Soccer. Hockey's just one of the whole big bunch. You're better off with any other hockey game ever created than this one, though, as it's just offensive with broken motion controls, dumbed-down mechanics and presentation that is literally cut-and-pasted from other Data Design products. If there are some kids in your life that you really can't stand, get them a Kidz Sports game on Wii. That'll teach 'em.

    4. Thomas, Lucas M. (2009-02-11). "Action Girlz Racing Review". IGN. Archived from the original on 2013-01-03. Retrieved 2019-05-27.

      The article notes:

      Action Girlz Racing was brought to us at the very beginning of 2008, too, almost a harbinger of the woes to follow -- it was released by Data Design Interactive and Conspiracy Entertainment in January of last year alongside a whole slew of other top-quality products like Rig Racer 2, Classic British Motor Racing and the sensational London Taxi: Rush Hour. And, in true Data Design style, it's essentially another copy of those same games.

      See, Data Design's developers made the decision to go for quantity over quality with their racing titles on Wii, and so came up with just one design -- but then gave it a half-dozen different coats of paint, in order to release it over and over as a bunch of "different" games. If you boot up any one of them, you've seen them all. And, sure enough, Action Girlz has the same menu design, control scheme and overall setup as all the rest. Its closest counterpart has to be Myth Makers: Super Kart GP, yet another effort from the same developer, released just one month earlier, that also bends this same engine toward the kart-racing subgenre.

    5. Fox, Tanner (2018-08-20). "30 Crazy Bad Video Games With (Almost) 0% On Metacritic". The Gamer. Archived from the original on 2019-05-27. Retrieved 2019-05-27.

      The Gamer is owned by Valnet, a publisher that also owns Screen Rant and Comic Book Resources, among other websites. The Gamer has editorial oversight.

      The article notes:

      Anubis II was one of a slew of terrible budget Wii titles developed by the now-defunct UK-based Data Design Interactive. Infamous for copying level designs wholesale from their previous titles, slapping a new coat of paint on them, and declaring them to be entirely new games, the company eventually caved in 2012 due to insolvency. Anubis II would be a relatively inoffensive, basic platformer were it not a total reskin of Ninja Breadman, Rock n’ Roll Adventures, and Trixie in Toyland—all of which were also developed by Data Design. All of these games are, apart from some visual variations, exactly the same. The funniest thing about Anubis II, however, is that there never was an original Anubis game—not that anyone would have asked for one to be made.

    6. Savino, Candace (2008-01-03). "Shovelware: A cause and effect". Engadget. Archived from the original on 2019-05-27. Retrieved 2019-05-27.

      The article notes:

      What you might not have noticed, though, is that a division of Destineer known as Bold Games was responsible for all six of the $20 Wii games released this week in North America.

      When it comes to how and why this happened, it's a case of simple economics. Rinde was in Europe when he found out that Data Design Interactive was looking for a company to publish its games in America, a role that Destineer eventually filled. Rinde garnered interest for these games from retailers, and sure enough, six DDI games ended up on the shelf for the week of 12/31.

      ...

      We can't say for a fact that all the Destineer games released for the Wii this week were absolute crap, but considering that DDI is the same company that developed Ninjabread Man, we don't have high hopes. Even if games like these are selling to the public, low-quality games only create consumer distrust for third parties, ultimately hurting sales for the good games out there.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Data Design Interactive to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 09:31, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard, none of these are significant coverage of the subject and do not assert its notability, they just have side-mentions of them in articles about their games. Note that many of their games do have articles, but notability is still not inherited. Lordtobi (✉) 09:39, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says, "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."

My opinion is that the sources "addres[s] the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content".

Animation World Network says Data Design Interactive "has been churning out top-notch games for some of the industry's most prestigious publishers" and " has earned a reputation as one of the UK's top games developers". It notes that Data Design Interactive has worked for "Sony, Millennium, PSS, Psygnosis, Ocean and Infogrames on projects such as Pegasus Bridge, ROBOCOD, Rise of the Robots and Water World". It notes that Data Design Interactive has developed for "Spectrum, Amstrad, Amiga, Game Boy, PC, Sega Megadrive and, of course, the Playstation". This is significant coverage in reliable sources.

IGN notes about Data Design Interactive's The Kidz Sports Series: "Developer Data Design Interactive made not one, but three horrendously bad sports games geared towards youngsters". It then says about "The rest of Data Design Interactive's Library": "Okay, we don't mean this to be mean, but maybe it's time Data Design Interactive stopped making Wii games. We've never seen a developer that spit out so many consistently awful titles in such a short time. Nearly every game we've reviewed under a 3.0 has come from this developer. That is just incredible."

A second IGN article notes "You've got to hand it to those guys -- they don't just suck in one genre. They spread the wealth around, ensuring that they've earned the lowest ratings possible in every single category of gaming there is." The article then provides an example about Data Design Interactive's hockey game: "it's just offensive with broken motion controls, dumbed-down mechanics and presentation that is literally cut-and-pasted from other Data Design products".

The Gamer noted that Data Design Interactive is "Infamous for copying level designs wholesale from their previous titles, slapping a new coat of paint on them, and declaring them to be entirely new games". It says Anubis II is "a total reskin of Ninja Breadman, Rock n’ Roll Adventures, and Trixie in Toyland", which were also created by Data Design Interactive. It notes that Data Design Interactive shuttered in 2012 because of insolvency.

There is enough material about Data Design Interactive's reputation and practices (positive material from Animation World Network and negative material from IGN, The Gamer, and Engadget) to allow it to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

Cunard (talk) 09:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is bearly enough content for ten sentences, let alone an entire article. "Detail" is usually more than three sentences on a subject per source. Lordtobi (✉) 09:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Data Design Interactive participants: Heymid (talk · contribs), Hellknowz (talk · contribs), Nolelover (talk · contribs), TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs), and Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk · contribs).

    Cunard (talk) 09:31, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm... a ping about a relisted AFD from 9 years ago? Let me take a look... Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep and suggest the nominator reads WP notability guidelines. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Catfish Jim, I'm well aware of our notability guidelines, and it is clear that the sources mentioned above do not establish notability for this topic. Not only do most of these not exceed one single mention, none of them actually goes in detail with it. Per WP:GNG: "... Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention ..."
      • First IGN source mentions two games developed by the company, plus an opinion on that DDI was bad at making Wii games. That's one sentence.
      • Second and third IGN source each mention another game, and that they were copied from another game they made. One sentence total.
      • TheGamer (which is also not reliable) only mentions one other game by the studio, not worth a sentence as we already have a list.
      • Engadget only says that several games were published by Destineer. If you're generous, one more sentence.
      • The only high flyer here is AWN, which has ... 7 mentions. What does this source contain? Location, head of art department, sister studio, some more games they worked on, as well as some partners they worked with. Except for the games and parterns (where in "partner" means "they published a game"), give each one sentence. What are we left with? Six sentences, or in our terms, a bad stub. This does not make for a notable topic, I'm afraid. Lordtobi (✉) 12:46, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 1 and 3 and press releases, 2 is already in the article, ref 4 is the same as this, which is also already in the article. And yes, I've been looking for sources. I have been looking out for such since 2016, and the lack of in-depth sources makes the non-notability of this company pretty obvious. If you'd check the article for a second, you'll see that I already incorporated the above sources that apparently assert the topic's notability, and it is still a way-too-short stub. Lordtobi (✉) 15:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable video game developer/publisher failing WP:GNG with no multiple reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. The sources provided are not in-depth, except perhaps AWM which would barely scrape the margin. They are reliable sources to provide supplementary information, but they are not sufficient for GNG purposes and the subject is not the central or primary topic of the articles. Coverage in contemporary magazines seems unlikely. Does not meet WP:NCORP and having developed notable video games is WP:NOTINHERITED. I agree with Lordtobi's summary of the sources above. (My original !vote was "keep", but the guidelines were more lax in 2010 and my argument wasn't really based on GNG anyway.) —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. None of Cunard's references meet the criteria. The selected quotation picked from the first one in the list from AWN looked promising until you read the article and it as a result of a visit to the company and relies almost entirely on quotations/interviews and fails WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 18:01, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Coverage given is sufficient to prove notability. Also the number of blue links in the list of games they created that are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article. A writer is notable for their books, a musician is notable for their songs, and a game company is notable for its games. Dream Focus 17:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dream Focus, your reasoning directly contradicts WP:INHERIT. Shall mean, a company is not notable just because it made some notable games. If there is no information available except that it made X games, there is no reason in keeping what is basically a WP:DIRECTORY. Lordtobi (✉) 17:17, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You should read that essay more closely. You don't get notability for being related to someone. It also reads: "That is not to say that this is always the case (four of the notability guidelines, for creative professions, books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances)". So while all the games they made aren't notable just because the company is, the company is notable for what it creates. Just as all the books a notable writer makes don't inherit notability, the author is judged by their notable works to determine their own notability. Dream Focus 17:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Inheritence works both ways. Please take a look at the current state of the article, it is merely a few introductory sentences, and then a full-on WP:DIRECTORY. The introductory sentences are based on all the sources (excl. press releases and duplicates) that this AfD has come up with thus far or was already in the article. Given the company's unpopularity and death seven years ago, it is also unlikely to expand. Does it look like a notable topic to you? Lordtobi (✉) 17:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"the company is notable for what it creates" What notability guideline are you basing this on? The closest exception to the WP:NOTINHERITED argument is WP:AUTHOR, which is for people and for significant influential works, not a few random video games. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 18:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dream Focus, the company made like 100 shovelware titles, being able to source 15 of them is a bad rate, so either it would be a woefully incomplete list article, or a mostly unsourced list article. I'd prefer to have neither. Besides, just like the developer's article, articles like Kawasaki Jet Ski and Kawasaki Snowmobiles should be deleted, as they only have one source and basically no content. An American Tail is just a redirect to the film of the same name, where there is literally just one sentence on the matter. Lordtobi (✉) 18:22, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I will get into this matter soon detailed, but Dream Focus, I am looking at those blue-linked games, and I would be surprised if majority of those (so 8 of 14 alive) would stay as is if brought to AfD. Also I am willing to (ironically) not count IGN review considering they reviewed EACH and EVERY of those and regularly trashing them in the posts, which makes me think the publisher and IGN had a bad relationship and they "reviewed" to mock them for how bad they are, which wouldn't and shouldn't add to notability of these. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete And to put my formal vote for th subject failing WP:NCORP. "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject", you say? Then let's analyze each reference put here (going numerically from Cunard to Catfish Jim ones):
1.This is a great source and by far the best of the bunch which would meet the criteria. However, majority of this significant coverage relates to developing a notable game Lego Rock Raiders (video game).
2."Data Design Interactive made horrible games" and "maybe it's time Data Design Interactive stopped making Wii games" does not constitute as WP:SIGCOV.
3."You've got to hand it to those guys -- they don't just suck in one genre. They spread the wealth around, ensuring that they've earned the lowest ratings possible in every single category of gaming there is." is not WP:SIGCOV.
4.Passing mention in another IGN's attack against Data Design Interactive.
5.Name drops in a paragraph about the game they developed is certainly not enough.
6."Rinde was in Europe when he found out that Data Design Interactive was looking for a company to publish its games in America, a role that Destineer eventually filled." Not WP:SIGCOV. Maybe in Wonderland.
Catfish 1. Press release as obvious by the way of writing.
Catfish 2. Another press release.
Catfish 3. Press release #3.
Catfish 4. Release in press...oh wait. It's not! But too bad, "Having secured developer status for Wii, Data Design Interactive has announced details of its titles heading to Nintendo's innovative console." along with a list of their games is not enough to be counted for WP:GNG, and absolutely not for WP:CORPDEPTH. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:55, 9 June 2019 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Data_Design_Interactive_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1253538553"