Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cauldron (company)


 * 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 redirect to Bohemia Interactive. Randykitty (talk) 13:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Cauldron (company)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Cauldron is not a notable company and fails WP:SIGCOV, as well as WP:NCORP. There are a few sources from 2014 when the studio was acquired and shut down, but these do not include more than its fate and count of staff at the time (25). A good indicator, IMO, is trying to find a reliable secondary source for the company's founder and foundation year, and I found none.

BOLD attempts to redirect the page to the page of the company that acquired Cauldron, specifically to the section where the acquisition is mentioned, were denied because the company is supposedly notable through the games it developed. Per NCORP and WP:INHERIT, notability is not inherited (in either direction).

If the games list (which, like the rest of the article, has no source at all) is the only thing to stand by this article, it is just a WP:DIRECTORY, and should not remain either; MobyGames or the like can be used to look these up instead. Lordtobi ( &#9993; ) 19:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 19:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 19:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions.  Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 19:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Redirect (to Bohemia Interactive). As nom (who I assume counts as a redirect) says, it just doesn't meet WP:NCORP - the only real significant sources I could find at all are during the acquisition, and they don't cover Cauldron itself in enough detail to meet SIGCOV. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:05, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Bohemia Interactive as it was acquired by them in 2014, clearly does not meet WP:GNG Spy-cicle (talk) 19:09, 1 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Rename List of games created by Cauldron. This is a list article, not an article about the company, and with that many notable games on their list having blue links to their own articles, its a valid list article.   D r e a m Focus  00:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , but that would miss the point of a list article. There would be no main topic where the list was extracted from for length issues and it would merely be a WP:DIRECTORY. That's not to mention that not a single entry in that list is currently sourced and you will find sources for the fewest. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 04:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * A list article aids in navigation by listing connected things. There are 19 games listed, and 18 have their own articles.  So it is a valid list article.  And you don't need a reference to tell you each game is from that company, you can just click the link to find that information in the articles linked to.   D r e a m Focus  12:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * See WP:DIRECTORY #7, the list lacks context because the company has no notability attached wherefore there is no actual content related to the company that would justify listing its products on Wikipedia. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 13:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:DIRECTORY #7 ends with "Lists of creative works in a wider context are permitted." There is ample content related to the company on Wikipedia in the form of all the articles for its games.  I've seen other list articles exist which don't have a company article but list their works.  List articles can exist to aid in navigation by linking to related articles, that's all they need to do.   D r e a m Focus  19:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Bohemia Interactive as a WP:ATD. No opinions on the list suggestion which can be freely created from the article's history at any time. Redirecting this to the list would serve no purpose, because it would have no info about the company. Sadly, the company fails WP:NCORP and I wasn't able to find indepth coverage (doesn't help the name itself is very generic). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.