Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IncaGold


 * 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. NW ( Talk ) 21:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

IncaGold

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Whilst they exist and they have published some games - I can't find anything that would establish their notability.  Random Time  23:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note I've just checked, and the author of this article is named Incagold richard - which is almost certenly a Conflict of Interest  Random Time  23:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I found an entry on Google Finance for the stock LON:IGD.  If a company was ever publicly traded it should be notable enough for Wikipedia.  Edward Vielmetti (talk) 23:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And more coverage from Reuters from IGDE.L. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 23:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note WP:LISTED says that notability is not automatic in the case of public trading  Random Time  23:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete unless notability can be better established and it can be re-written in a less self-promotional manner. Eeekster (talk) 23:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Sources found do not establish notability. --Teancum (talk) 15:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep With all the games they've published, and a stock ticker, I find it is notable enough for an article–still an article that needs some help. matthewpaulster (talk) 03:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  01:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete - WP:LISTED as already mentioned above; only news web hit is a press release. No search hits at industry magazines like Edge. Marasmusine (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I have expanded and tidied the list of games based on research - and put it in alphabetical order. A number of these games of IncaGold I have found in Nestlé cereal boxes - that means millions of units are out there per game worldwide. The company is a good example of hard to find company that has a niche market. todosjogos (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC) — todosjogos (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep AIM Admission Document is verified information. The company's product names bring up more hits than the company itself, but as these are games for the mass-market, I the brand name wouldn't. highscorejunky 20:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC) — highscorejunky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete Regardless of turnover I can find no information which suggests this company is any more suitable for a WP article than countless faceless budget outfits, there is no coverage of them. The vast majority of the titles the company has released appear to be the kind of budget games which receive no press, don't get sold in any major stores, and eventually end up on car boot sale stalls stacked high for 99p a pop (and still not selling). Without secondary sources we revert to looking at necessity due to importance etc., sorry but I'm really not seeing a case for this. Someoneanother 22:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I see no significant coverage whatsoever (Google offers only press releases) and thus cannot verify notability. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin – Per Sockpuppet investigations/Incagold richard:
 * User:Highscorejunky, User:Todosjogos, and User:Genevoise1291 are ✅ to be the same person.
 * User:Incagold richard is to the same as the above.

–MuZemike 09:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The only coverage that exists out there is from press releases and the like.  When actual non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications is available we can create an article then.  JBsupreme (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2010 (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.