Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doki Denki Studio
Source: 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. Wizardman 14:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doki Denki Studio
- Doki Denki Studio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unnotable video game company. Appears to have produced only four games in its short four year history, none of which were particularly large nor notable. Fails
WP:N. Prod removed by vandal/sock during a multi-article spreed; all of vandals edits were reverted so prod ended up being restore, and was then removed by legit user under the note that it still counted as a dispute even if it was a vandal. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
- Delete: Maintains no notability. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 14:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the ]
- Delete: No notability at present, no English sources available to correct that. French sources don't appear to be helpful either (though I'll admit I can't understand French any more). --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 14:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The games were all released by big well-known publishers and over half of them were based on Disney licensed material. I have trouble believing that the studio creating such games would have no notability whatsoever. I suggest userfying or moving to the article incubator so the creator or someone else can give those French sources a closer look. - Mgm|(talk) 12:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- flagged revs now! // 05:21, 21 December 2009 (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.