A fact from Nyu Media appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 12 February 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that a dispute between Nyu Media and PayPal led to a reform of the latter's crowdfunding policies?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 00:12, July 19, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
(Continued from AfD)
I agree "PR" is a simplification - "product announcements" (this one even quotes the PR url)
The publisher being an RS has no bearing on the lack of details on the company (vs product). This situation seems to be a polarised. Characterising the nom or the problem as tone is incorrect - it is depth of sources for WP:CORP.
The norm in this sector with vetted sites producing sources than can still be challenged, and other articles are WP:OTHERSTUFF. There's too much emphasis here on promotional tone and the publisher being vetted by WP:VG/RS, and not quality of the sources. Product announcements (PR or not) are "trivial" per WP:CORPDEPTH, and in case WP:VG is out of step with that, it needs to be dismissed per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. I would suggest relisting with wider views to reconcile the sourcing issue. Widefox; talk 8:37 pm, 15 December 2014, Monday (11 days ago) (UTC+0) (restored from history Widefox; talk23:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC))Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion
As this has been recreated, can we get a restore/merge of the talk and article pls. As the AfD was no consensus, I've put the notability tag back on, as the issues with sources may (or may not) be still relevant in the new version. Widefox; talk12:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
A restore of what? The previous article was deleted as G11, but if you want to restore parts of that, I'd ask the deleting admin. I'm removing the notability tag as it it is not helpful: we just went through AfD and there was no consensus. czar⨹14:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
Just the talk actually, and I don't know who deleted it - there's no notification on the blocked creator's page.
Pssst, I say delete so I have no wish to expand this article, I don't even know Nyu Media, Look, Nyu said they make Bullet hell AKA Danmaku in Japanese as Nyu claim to be doujin, but from my experience from playing many bullet hell doujin game example like Touhou or Team Shanghai Alice I never found or know "Nyu media". So yeah I will never expand this article.--AldNonUcallin?☎10:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
Speedy renomination at AfD is for situations with low participation. The idea is that we just had a discussion about it—do you think another AfD is going to bring about a different result? You can look at the page logs to see who performed the G11 (JzG, who was already pinged). I think there are procedural errors in the timeline you described, but we're ultimately concerned with whether the article is notable. I think it should be clear that with a dozen vetted sourcesdeemed reliable by WPVG discuss this company as the subject of their reporting, if not in depth. This is enough to constitute significant coverage under the general notability guideline, and certainly enough to contest a notability cleanup tag. My intent was to put the sources discussed into the article, which happened sooner than I had time for due to the G11. Still, I think my case has been made adequately so I'm going to step aside for now czar⨹13:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
I can agree on notability based on newly added sources on the article, but can you do something to those single site reference to Polygon about Nyu vs Paypal? It need more references other than from Polygon, and if no editor can't find it, that part have to be removed.--AldNonUcallin?☎16:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
As for notability, DGG, following my new tool suggestion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opus Software Solutions to evaluate if sources are not 100% independent, but rather churnalism, the first hit of Google "Nyu Media" press release -> put into duplication detector matches source 3. [1]
My complaint was with the actions taken in the timeline, not the (updated) timeline itself. Sorry for the delay but, regrettably, I don't have time to pursue this further czar⨹09:31, 26 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
In my personal opinion reasonably speedy renomination is appropriate after a no-consensus, but it is usually advisable to give some time to help establish it. the closer properly suggested just that in this case. As for actual notability, questions of notability are more likely to be resolved there than here. DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
... can you do something to those single site reference to Polygon about Nyu vs Paypal? It need more references other than from Polygon, and if no editor can't find it, that part have to be removed.
Don't want to get off-topic, so I moved this to its own thread. To answer your question: [2][3][4][5] This said, I don't follow the logic. Polygon is as reliable as VG sources come and there shouldn't be an issue with sourcing the two-sentence story exclusively to the same publisher. Perhaps if its claims were controversial or it possibly was not a notable event... but that's not remotely the case. czar⨹17:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
I don;t know where to put this as I do not work with DYK, but I personally think this is an extremely poor idea, which can be seen as promoting and encouraging advertising on WP, even though the present article is not an advertisement. I leave it to others to pursue the matter if they choose. DGG ( talk ) 17:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
My concern is threefold given the #Timeline, that despite the quality of work here, and even though arguably reasonable, interesting and worthy in itself:
This effectively rewards the undisclosed paid editing (now against our TOU) with bonus promotion, and
May be seen as such
The sourcing is PR based so lowers the bar for this.
I've no experience with DYK, a quick look shows it has no criterion for challenging based upon this concern, although I did find that "D5: Articles nominated for deletion will not be used unless they have survived the deletion process." so it appears ineligible right now, and I'll relay that there. Widefox; talk13:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)Reply