Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Command International

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. The subject of a lack of reliable sources has not been adequately addressed. ‑Scottywong| soliloquize _ 04:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

United Command International

[edit]
United Command International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The company is a maker of games for the iOS platform, but has no significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. Whpq (talk) 11:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This company was featured in UK press and iPhone magazine (around April 2011) This company is a member of TIGA a trade body for the UK games industry. http://www.tiga.org/ I can quite easily find 3rd party references online via a google search, such as the "indie games database" http://www.indiedb.com/company/united-command-international ??? Maybe not as widely recognised in Canada as in the UK ?? notability. PeanutPower (talk) 11:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi, iPhone / wiki user from Ireland here. I search new games quite alot. I've seen this company prominently featured in the charts several times. Not sure how to "cite" this though. Hope that helps Cheers, Kyle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 54.247.180.45 (talk) 12:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - What is needed is specific citations to coverage and not just assertions that the company has coverage. Can you tell us what magazine, issue, page number etc? -- Whpq (talk) 13:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Page 47 "iPhone BiWeekly Magazine", it's a full page article on "Cupcake Swap" by United Command. I dunno how I could cite that app store, that's where the company's predominantly featured here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 54.247.180.45 (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This company has been around on the app store for ages. They are famous for making mediocre games... read the reviews if you don't believe me! I quote: "The graphics are atrocious, with the thrust hidden by the player's finger and some of the weakest explosions I've ever seen. The soundtrack is stolen straight from "Air Attack." You can only level your single weapon twice. There are four enemy ships that all do the same thing; fly and shoot vertically. YOU CAN CRASH INTO THE BOTTOM OF THE SCREEN. A huge ad covers the top of the screen.—I could go on, but I think I've been generous by even writing this review." --LordOfKobol (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC) — LordOfKobol (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Reply - Their fame "for making mediocre games" still needs to be backed up by reliable sources, and not just a bunch of user reivews on iTunes. -- Whpq (talk) 16:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - User reviews from iTunes don't help establish notability.
  • Delete - No coverage in reliable, third party sources. So far, none of the "Keep" !votes have been able to provide any proof otherwise, nor have I been able to find anything myself. Websites like Gamespot or Gamezebo only have virtually empty database entries on the company. Fails the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 23:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:NOTTEMPORARY According to the data I found on the independant and reliable source AppAnnie AppAnnie - the apparent defacto choice for app performance analytics the company has had several #1 chart position titles. I would propose that this made the company noteable at that time since there are more than 300 million iOS users, to put that in context I believe Wikipedia has 17m registered users so if something was on the front page of wikipedia (like the SOPA campaign) for several weeks would that not be notable--PeanutPower (talk) 10:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply - The sales charts by themselves simply are facts. They may hint at notability but they don't demonstrate notability. Fundamentally, what is needed is significant coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 13:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The company does not meet WP:CORP; I was unable to find any coverage in WP:RS. Peanut Power, if this company is developing and selling as many apps as some of these sales chart suggest, I imagine it may someday receive the requisite independent and reliable coverage necessary for inclusion. However, I do not feel that this company's notability has been established at this point. None but shining hours (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/United_Command_International&oldid=1138748637"