Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NimbleBit

NimbleBit (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:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. This is the best source on it I could find, but a lot of it was primary. This is also a primary-sourced interview. Sourcing has been extremely slim from the article's inception. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:21, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and California. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:21, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to Tiny Tower or a more notable game. Go D. Usopp (talk) 05:37, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

  They made a lot of games, and while some of the articles may not be notable, others clearly are. There does not seem to be one place to redirect the studio, and sending it to a random game is liable to cause WP:SURPRISE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:09, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

  Perhaps, instead of a redirect, the article should be renamed to List of NimbleBit games instead? – numbermaniac 08:17, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

• IAR Keep, even if this is basically a list of games, because of the ridiculous navigational implications of deleting an article for a studio with twelve wiki-notable games. ~ A412 ^talk! 05:04, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
  • In the interest of helping a closer, I'm fine with a result of redirect to Tiny Tower, which is at least not a redlink and has {{NimbleBit}} at the bottom. ~ A412 ^talk! 21:19, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

  As a non-IAR justification, this is a navigational list. ~ A412 ^talk! 05:05, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

  There are no "ridiculous navigational implications" whatsoever, as a navbox for the studio already exists. Navboxes can handily deal with the navigation even in the absence of a studio article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:40, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

  The ridiculous navigational implication is that NimbleBit would somehow be a redlink despite us clearly having plenty of information on Nimblebit (its developed games) and an obvious way to organize that information. The IAR here is that the encyclopedia is clearly worse off when NimbleBit is red, even if it technically adheres to guidelines. ~ A412 ^talk! 05:55, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

  You are not really arguing IAR, but that the notability guidelines are wrong and something like WP:NCREATIVE needs to be extended to companies. In WP:WIARM#Diagram and flowchart it would fall under "is that because the rules are wrong" > yes. In this case IAR cannot really be invoked as it is not an isolated circumstance the rules can be bypassed. There is nothing special about this compared to every other company AfD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:05, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

  @A412 @Zxcvbnm This comes as a surprise considering how many notable games they have developed and major companies they have worked with. Maybe keep Template:NimbleBit and Category:NimbleBit games at least? (This brings to mind WP:CREATIVE #3, which allows people to have articles even if they are not independently notable if they have worked on a number of notable projects.) There is some coverage of NimbleBit's store in this book (pages 113-114, 116, and 400).

  I invite the opinion of @Vrxces and @11WB to this discussion. NewAccount7295 (talk) 15:58, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

  Whilst I may have come across this AfD eventually, pinging other editors in does violate WP:CANVASSING. To keep this AfD free from bias, I'm now going to declare myself recused from !voting or commenting. 11WB 💬 16:04, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

I wasn't canvassing. Canvassing isn't inviting users to a discussion, it is inviting users to change the consensus. I don't know what opinion you and Vrxces would have here. I just thought since you participated in a related discussion and edit these kinds of articles you might want to with this one as well. NewAccount7295 (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

In future, please do not ping me to consensus-seeking discussions. That is a boundary I have and have no issues making clear here. 11WB 💬 01:34, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep I may not know how you find the only source but I did a google search and found this and this. Definitely enough to improve the article, at least the history part ~ Elisapoly (talk) 19:35, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

  The issue is that both of those sources are interviews, and those are generally excluded when it comes to notability. NewAccount7295 (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

  Hmm? Where does Wikipedia:Notability says about excluding interviews? Elisapoly (talk) 18:17, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

• It says in NCORP, specifically WP:ORGIND that there's a requirement for "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Clearly, articles relying entirely on PR and interview/quotes/etc fails ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:47, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:17, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to Tiny Tower as the destination of most coverage about the studio. I think the nominator is correct on policy. On the sourcing in the article, WP:GNG and WP:NCORP applies in relation to the studio as the subject matter and there's little here outside its works to rise above WP:NOTINHERITED.

On the additional sources, interviews and press releases are WP:PRIMARY sources and do not contribute strongly to notability: information relayed about the subject is in their own words and there is not much independent commentary per WP:ORGIND. I understand that is somewhat burdensome as most corporate and development information tends to be from the studio in question. Wooldridge & Pierce is an in-depth technical description of the user experience and design of the NimbleStore, which is helpful but limited in its ability to describe key aspects of the topic as a whole.

On the practical side, I agree there's an unsatisfying grey area here, although in practice using this argument would have the obvious implication of setting de facto notability for any studio with notable work(s) and that seems too low a bar. There needs to be a clearer discussion on how studio notability is treated where there are notable works and little coverage on the studio. I don't think this is a great case for WP:WIARM because this is something that is coming up over and over at AFD. For what it's worth, I'd suggest in a broader conversation that the standard is met where independent commentary or analysis sufficiently describes key aspects of the company in depth. Maybe there's somewhere in between, and if there are workable alternatives around allowing these kinds of articles on merits separate to what's sought under general notability, let's set the norm by consensus first.

As an aside, I discovered this independently from the NPP and didn't notice the NewAccount ping until I read the discussion. VRXCES (talk) 00:53, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

• I also found this article from AdWeek I wonder if Ian and David Marsh are notable even if NimbleBit is not? Possibly not, but just saying. NewAccount7295 (talk) 01:22, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

• Move to Ian and David Marsh as an alternative to deletion. As an indie studio, the founders have played a significant role in creating NimbleBit's notable games, and thus are eligible for an article under WP:NCREATIVE #3. NewAccount7295 (talk) 20:14, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

  I disagree for three reasons:

  • On policy , my reading of WP:NCREATIVE #3, is that the work or body of work must be "significant or well known". When read in tandem with the other rules - "important or widely cited", or "significant new concept, theory or technique" - the bar "significant or well known" is imposing on the recognition of the work itself is not mere notability. A case has to be made as to why Ian and David Marsh, or NimbleBit, are widely recognised for their contributions to app development. This is a stricter test than WP:GNG.
  • Given the studio is a stand-in for a small group of people, WP:NCREATIVE arguably applies whether the target is for the studio or the developers of the studio in a personal capacity as the overlap is so large. I don't think there's any difference in terms of subject matter based on the coverage available in the same way that there's much to say about Will Wright and Maxis.
  • The above interpretation rests on assuming WP:NCREATIVE would functionally create a separate pathway to notability where WP:GNG would not for a studio. If that interpretation were correct, again, it would virtually guarantee any creator of notable work(s) gets an article which is a big call to make. VRXCES (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

  • That said, they have been described as being significant contributors to mobile gaming. See page 231 of this book for example as well as this Pocket Gamer article as although it is an interview, there is still some independent commentary. NewAccount7295 (talk) 02:52, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

  This isn't a good solution; there appears to be just as little to say about them. ~ A412 ^talk! 21:17, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

  +1 ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:32, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep, keep+move, or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 06:14, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Keep per WP:NCREATIVE - specifically #4(c) - no less than 12 blue-link games, each of which with significant critical attention. Oppose any result less (so oppose draftify, redirect, merge, and delete). Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

It does seem WP:NCREATIVE applies here and this is a plausible reading. Whilst Tiny Tower has received "significant critical attention", I'd strongly caution the interpretation all their games with one or two reviews would meet what is meant to be a higher standard, like Sky Burger or Nimble Quest. If that interpretation was taken, again, any studio with a notable title would automatically qualify for an article, and that seems to defeat the point of the criteria. VRXCES (talk) 21:14, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, VRXCES! The standard does require multiple notable titles, so I don't really see any risk of a one-notable-game studio getting in. As for the two games you cited, I do see a lot there for Sky Burger (Macworld, two TouchArcade, and VideoGamer.com), and two very solid reviewers (Pocket Gamer and Gamezebo) for Nimble Quest. As such, especially considering just how many bluelinked games that clearly pass notability this studio has (12), my vote remains keep. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 22:20, 9 September 2026 (UTC)