Conservapedia:AFD Rare (company)

This is a useless and trivial entry about some obscure company that I'm sure very few people will look up. Is there a reason to keep it? I thought a goal of this site was to not have all the obscure pop culture entries that Wikipedia has. --Ronald (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2017 (EDT)

It does seem somewhat trivial. I don't recognize any of the games listed and especially noteworthy, either. In it's defense, I suppose at least Microsoft saw enough value in the company to buy it. I'm fairly ambivalent myself. I wouldn't miss it if it was gone, but don't especailly want it removed, either. I have no argument with deletion if others want it removed as well. --David B ^(TALK) 22:19, 9 July 2017 (EDT)

The only games I personally recognize are the Donkey Kong ones. I'm pretty sure we got those for the kids for Hanukkah back in the 90s. Although my concern is how notable this company is, and it is true that it's a subsidiary of Microsoft. Should it have its own article or be merged into the Microsoft article? There does seem to be a fair bit of work put into this article, after all. But I'm just not sure how notable it is. --Ronald (talk) 09:44, 10 July 2017 (EDT)

Those were the ones that stood out to me, too. The company does not seem exceptionally notable, but as you mentioned, a lot of effort has gone into this. I don't see that it is doing any harm, so I have no problem with it staying here. It seems WP sometimes uses the "notability" ax as a weapon to demolish hard work. I don't want to err on that side. Maybe this page should be left alone. --David B ^(TALK) 10:25, 10 July 2017 (EDT)

As the primary author of this entry, I strongly suggest that it is left alone and this request to be closed. -l-Anglican (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2017 (EDT)

So, what value does this entry provide the reader? Is it better for the article about a subsidiary to be longer than the one about its parent company? I just want to know. --Ronald (talk) 22:02, 12 July 2017 (EDT)

I don't see any reason to delete the article. This may not be such a notable company, but it is by no means one that is so obscure that we cannot have an article on it. Besides, as of the time I write, it has already received over 550 page views. Apparently, some people are interested in it. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:06, 12 July 2017 (EDT)

I suppose you're right, but I just still find it rather bizarre since the entry on its parent company Microsoft is far less detailed. --Ronald (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2017 (EDT)

It's good that an editor has taken the time to write a detailed entry for this article, and hopefully someone else will expand the Microsoft article. Just because more important articles are less detailed does not mean we should delete less important articles or keep them as stubs. We should expand important articles, but not doing so should not affect articles like this. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:18, 12 July 2017 (EDT)

Very well. If no one else wants to see it deleted, I suppose this case should be closed. Although shouldn't the section of list of games be dewikified? I'm assuming we don't want articles about all of those games, which save the Donkey Kong ones are probably rather obscure. --Ronald (talk) 22:22, 12 July 2017 (EDT)

I am OK with dewikifying the red links, but only if Anglican does not plan on creating articles for those games in the near future. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:27, 12 July 2017 (EDT)