Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cloudcade

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. Sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 01:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudcade[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company. Article is based solely on a publicity event held by the company's founders. The company is "planning to create games" but has not yet released any product. Note WP:COI author. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm torn on this one. The nomination sounds good, but there's already at least 3 reliable sources that dedicate whole articles to the subject... Sergecross73 msg me 01:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable spam Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the third party reliable sources covering the topic in detail? Sergecross73 msg me 22:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Any spam/COI/promotional tones are unfortunate...but reasons for cleanup, not deletion. Regardless of the shoddy state its currently in, it does meet the WP:GNG through significant coverage in third party reliable sources.

http://www.pocketgamer.biz/asia/news/60087/idg-capital-drops-155-million-on-cloudcade-to-drive-f2p-innovation/
http://venturebeat.com/2014/10/08/cloudcade-raises-1-55m-for-mid-core-mobile-game-studio-with-a-global-focus/
http://gamasutra.com/view/news/227347/Another_veteranstaffed_startup_nets_155M_to_make_mobile_games.php
The Dow Jones
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-10-09-mobile-studio-cloudcade-raises-USD1-55-million
http://www.montrealinternational.com/en/news/2014/10/cloudcade-opens-office-greater-montreal/

The game is receiving coverage in both video game and economics-related sources, which honestly, is a lot broader than many notable topics in the video game world. Sergecross73 msg me 22:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All of the coverage appears to be based on the single fact that this company managed to raise $1.55M in the venture capital market. And that coverage all seems to stem from a single press conference that the company had to announce that fact. Perhaps the gaming industry is starved for any useful news these days, but a company isn't notable for merely raising money, it is notable for producing notable products, which this one has not yet done. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of how/why, each of the sources are definitely third party and discussing the subject in significant detail. I've provided six sources that have a consensus for being reliable, and there's more out there. There's easily enough content for a good stub here. Spin it however you like, it certainly meets the bare minimum of what is defined by the GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 22:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 11:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:TOOSOON to determine whether this startup is going to prove notable. Is the threshold of notability that a company got press for receiving seed money? With respect to User:Sergecross73's industry finding sources, they represent, at least IMHO, routine gaming business news. Lots of start-ups get seed money, and most of them don't pan out. This is normal in business. Thousands of these articles are published every day, just like sports scores. Since notability is not temporary, this narrow discussion has no way of determining notability before the company gets a single customer interaction. BusterD (talk) 23:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there are sources, but they're routine stuff, barely better than directory entries. I don't think it amounts to substantial coverage, as required by the GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. I'm not sure why this fact hasn't been mentioned here, but the page creator was blocked just minutes after creating this entirely promotional page because the account name was a blatant violation of WP:CORPNAME. BusterD (talk) 11:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It hasn't been mentioned because it's largely irrelevant. Whether or not the creator had good or ill intentions in creating this page, we should be deciding whether the subject merits an article, not whether the current article is valid. If the subject merits coverage, then we can improve the article. But if, as I argue, they do not merit coverage, then there is no point in improving the article. But the article stand or falls on the notability of the company, not on the intentions of the author. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I can't argue with what User:WikiDan61 said; the comments are certainly within pillars, policy, and guideline. I've made my comment on the merits above. However, under only slightly different circumstances, somebody might have G11ed this page and we wouldn't be having this very civil discussion about the contributions of a blocked user. We do delete pages summarily for being purely promotional. There's something about suicide pact here which deserves a better forum than this narrow process. BusterD (talk) 12:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment True, but I didn't find this page that exceptionally promotional. Opinions vary, I suppose. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment. IMHO, the company nakedly used Wikipedia in order to raise its corporate profile days after a press conference announcing major capital infusion. That's the very definition of promotional. This strategy, if successfully used, makes Wikipedia just another tool in an investment manager's playbook. I have issues with that, thus my comment about the page creator. BusterD (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment I see your point. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Comment - The fact that this had to be re-listed at AFD is probably a sign that it's not quite as clear-cut as you think, and wouldn't have been a good speedy deletion candidate. Even now, we've only got the input of a handful of editors. This is usually the type of article that I totally rewrite and re-source to show that there's clearly enough coverage and content here to meet the WP:GNG. I'm just not that motivated to do that since I'm not all that big on mobile gaming, and don't especially feel inclined to help out a company that clearly went out of their way to use Wikipedia as a means of personal promotion... Sergecross73 msg me 15:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry if I seemed to go on a rant there... BusterD (talk) 15:25, 28 October 2014 (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.