Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OnceLost Games

OnceLost Games

[edit]

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

OnceLost Games (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)

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH outside of The Wayward Realms or Julian LeFay. The Wayward Realms is a viable WP:ATD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:22, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:22, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep. The nominator's ATD suggestion misapplies policy. Yes, The Wayward Realms and Julian LeFay mention OnceLost Games, but that's expected since they're naturally related topics. The question isn't whether other articles mention the company, it's whether the company itself has sufficient independent coverage to warrant its own article per WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.
    OnceLost Games clearly does:
    • The company's founding story itself received significant coverage as a notable industry event (multiple Bethesda veterans reuniting after decades)
    • Coverage specifically discusses the company's internal challenges, business decisions, and organizational changes (Phoenix departure, publisher negotiations, personnel conflicts)
    • The studio has multiple notable founders (Peterson, LeFay, Lakshman, Goodall, Heberling), not just one person whose biography could contain everything
    • Significant coverage of the company's business strategy, crowdfunding success, and development approach exists independent of game feature discussion
    • LeFay's death generated substantial coverage specifically about his role at OnceLost Games and the company's future
    Merging to The Wayward Realms would create an awkward situation where we're cramming company history, founding details, business decisions, and personnel matters into a game article. That's backwards. Games are products of companies, not the other way around. The current structure (separate articles) properly reflects how sources treat these topics.
    The fact that information appears in multiple articles doesn't violate any policy. WP:ATD is an alternative when content doesn't meet notability requirements, not a mandatory action when related articles exist. OnceLost Games meets WP:CORPDEPTH with significant, independent coverage beyond routine announcements. MightyLebowski (talk) 20:29, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Wayward Realms. Article drastically overstates the amount of independent coverage the studio has received save for its founding, most of which are derived from the game or the studio's members. Go D. Usopp (talk) 05:48, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No Wikipedia policy requires that coverage be "purely independent" of related topics to be considered notable; WP:GNG explicitly states that significant coverage "does not need to be the main topic of the source material", and OnceLost Games has received substantive coverage in independent, reliable sources discussing the company's operations, founding, business decisions, and organizational challenges. MightyLebowski (talk) 07:51, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, as shown below, almost all coverage that The Wayward Realms has received is derived from the studio's members, so by your logic, we should go ahead and delete The Wayward Realms too. I'm trying to understand why anyone would want to confuse people and merge two distinct articles using (incorrect) Wikipedia policy logic that (when applied consistently) would lead to both being deleted. If you read The Wayward Realms article, the Development section is a mess, and is largely unrelated to the actual development (instead discussing internal game studio conflicts, members of the studio, business strategy, etc.). MightyLebowski (talk) 13:38, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in response to this, I have made a source assessment table of the sources to demonstrate my reasoning in making the nomination.
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Yes ~ "Articles written by Forbes staff are reliable. Articles written by Forbes contributors do not have the same editorial oversight and may not be reliable." Yes ~ Partial
Yes Yes No Mostly about Julian LeFay's history as a game developer and death, trivial mention of OnceLost games as part of his accomplishments ✘ No
No Posted by OnceLost games No User generated Yes ✘ No
Yes Yes No Mostly about Julian LeFay's history as a game developer and death, trivial mention of OnceLost games as part of his accomplishments ✘ No
Yes Yes No Mostly about Julian LeFay's creation of The Wayward Realms and death, trivial mention of OnceLost games ✘ No
Yes No GameRant is a Valnet property No Mostly about Wayward Realms ✘ No
No Announcement post by devs No User generated No About Wayward Realms ✘ No
Yes Yes No About Wayward Realms, trivial mention of OnceLost Games ✘ No
Yes Yes No About Wayward Realms, trivial mention of OnceLost Games ✘ No
Yes Yes No Minor announcement, run of the mill ✘ No
Yes Yes No Mostly about Julian LeFay's history as a game developer and death, trivial mention of OnceLost games as part of his accomplishments ✘ No
Yes Yes No Mostly about Wayward Realms, trivial mention of OnceLost Games ✘ No
Yes Yes No Mostly about Wayward Realms, trivial mention of OnceLost Games ✘ No
Yes Yes No Mostly about Wayward Realms, trivial mention of OnceLost Games ✘ No
Yes Yes No Mostly about Wayward Realms, trivial mention of OnceLost Games ✘ No
Yes Yes No Mostly about Wayward Realms, trivial mention of OnceLost Games ✘ No
Yes Yes No Mostly about Julian LeFay, trivial mention of OnceLost games ✘ No
No Primary source interview Yes No Long before OnceLost Games was formed ✘ No
No Primary source interview Yes No Long before OnceLost Games was formed ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

I think it speaks for itself, tell me if you take issue with any part of this. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:10, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Response to source assessment table: I appreciate the detailed breakdown, but it misapplies WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH in several critical ways:
On the Forbes source reliability objection: You marked it reliable and significant but questioned it because it's Forbes Contributor content. Per WP:RSPS, Forbes Contributors articles can be used when the author has subject matter expertise. Alex Kane covers gaming professionally and this is a substantive interview specifically about OnceLost Games' founding. Even if we set this aside entirely, there's still sufficient coverage.
On the "trivial mention" characterizations: This is where the assessment fundamentally misunderstands WP:CORPDEPTH. Multiple sources you marked as "trivial" actually contain significant discussion of OnceLost Games:
  • Escapist Magazine (marked "minor announcement"): The article is literally titled "Classic Elder Scrolls Developers Launch New Studio, OnceLost Games." Coverage of a company's founding by notable industry veterans is significant per WP:NCORP (few companies get an announcement article written about them upon their formation unless they're notable).
  • Kotaku, PC Gamer, Rock Paper Shotgun (LeFay death coverage, all marked "trivial"): These articles discuss OnceLost Games as LeFay's current company, quote company statements, discuss the company's future plans, and analyze what his death means for the studio. This isn't passing mention but substantive discussion of the company's circumstances and operations.
  • PCGamesN funding article (2022): Discusses OnceLost Games' investor search, management structure, volunteer workforce, development philosophy, and business strategy. You marked this "trivial mention" but it contains multiple paragraphs specifically about the company's operations and funding challenges.
The dispute is whether coverage meets WP:GNG's standard for "significant coverage" versus trivial mentions. Per WP:GNG, significant coverage "does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Sources discussing The Wayward Realms while extensively covering OnceLost Games' founding by industry veterans, internal conflicts, business strategy, and creative decisions provide significant coverage of the company itself, not mere mentions.
Further explanation: WP:CORPDEPTH requires "significant coverage" not "articles primarily about the subject." Coverage of OnceLost Games' founding, business decisions ($8M publisher rejection), organizational structure (40+ volunteers), internal conflicts (Phoenix departure), funding strategy (Kickstarter pivot after rejecting crowdfunding initially), and operational challenges is significant coverage even when appearing in articles that also discuss related topics like The Wayward Realms or Julian LeFay.
Your standard would require game studios to have dedicated profile pieces to qualify for articles. That's not Wikipedia policy. WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH are satisfied by "significant coverage" across multiple reliable sources, which clearly exists here. The aggregate coverage provides detailed information about the company's formation, operations, personnel, business strategy, and organizational challenges.
Finally, per WP:NEXIST, notability is based on whether suitable sources exist, not on the current state of citations in the article. The sources clearly exist (multiple reliable gaming publications have covered OnceLost Games' founding, business operations, and organizational developments). Even if the article (being brand new) could be improved with additional citations, that's not grounds for deletion/merging. The topic meets notability requirements because independent, reliable sources about the company are available in the real world.
OnceLost Games has significant, policy-compliant coverage (even if it's alongside other related coverage), and therefore its own article is clearly warranted. MightyLebowski (talk) 08:21, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who has seen actual profile articles on companies numerous times, this is drastically overestimating the non-triviality of these sources. I am fully aware of the policy that significant coverage does not need to be the main topic, and even by those standards, it is trivial. But, given how vehement your argument is, it is unlikely we will ever see eye to eye, so I will wait for others to chime in about my source analysis. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:25, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm genuinely puzzled why the coverage of OnceLost Games' founding, business decisions, organizational structure, and operational challenges in these sources should be characterized as trivial when the coverage of The Wayward Realms in those same articles is presumably sufficient to establish its notability. Many articles on the game are primarily about the founders (not the game itself), so should we merge The Wayward Realms into Julian LeFay's or Ted Peterson's article? After all, the only reason The Wayward Realms is notable is due to the founders being former senior Bethesda employees. I don't imagine you would propose that, so I'm just saying your logic doesn't make much sense. Both OnceLost Games and The Wayward Realms have received sufficient, non-trival media coverage to make them notable. MightyLebowski (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I'm not particularly convinced The Wayward Realms is notable either, and I believe that coverage of both the game and the studio are trivial in all of those examples, but it did get a decent amount more coverage even if it is largely hype or speculative. It's enough that I'd be fine with "letting sleeping dogs lie" until the game is actually released and very likely becomes notable, unless the game lapses into being vaporware or is cancelled. On the other hand, the studio itself has almost nothing of substance, and did not even release a single game thus far. Merging it into the game would be uncontroversial in my eyes.
If we were going by the letter of policy then IMO both Wayward Realms and the studio should be merged into Julian LeFay's page, as he appears clearly notable for his role in creating Elder Scrolls, as well as his death. I am less convinced Ted Peterson passes WP:NWRITER. A lot of the sourcing there is weak. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:50, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion logic seems trigger-happy.
I cited WP:NEXIST earlier for a reason: an article shouldn't be deleted or merged just because of citation issues. The question of notability is based on whether it has non-trivial mentions in WP:RS, and I think it's well-established that all of the articles being discussed (including this one) have significant mentions in reliable sources (main subject or not).
I understand you want thorough sourcing, which is valuable, but we shouldn't start deleting or merging articles just because they have sourcing problems. I brought up the article comparisons to show that The Wayward Realms (and, from your perspective, Ted Peterson) would be deleted too under this logic, which goes too far. That's why deleting or merging this article also goes too far and applies policy more strictly than intended. MightyLebowski (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the problem comes when the topic of any given article only has one usable source. this can't even fly as a stub. people often set three usable sources as the baseline for an article for this exact reason
also, no one voted to delete or merge. usopp and i voted to redirect, which means that, ideally, no content will be carried over, and bottom row of a qwerty keyboard suggested the same consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 13:56, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It has enough mentions to warrant notability, but you say it can't even be a stub? Lol. Using wikilawyering to justify a redirect on separate notable topics is wild. MightyLebowski (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More opinions on the source assessment are welcomed, so far consensus leans towards redirect
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to The Wayward Realms. I think the Forbes article is a reliable source, Alex Kane counts as a subject-matter expert, he has written for multiple other reliable sources: [1]. But I don't see another piece of significant coverage so the article falls just below notability. Some of the content could also be merged between Julian LeFay and Ted Peterson (writer) if deemed appropriate. --Mika1h (talk) 00:27, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a video game article. The reliable sources are listed here.
    There's way more than just one reliable source in this article. From the above list:

    PC Gamer
    GamesRadar+
    PCGamesN
    Rock Paper Shotgun
    NME

    Would you agree they're notable now? MightyLebowski (talk) 05:09, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]