Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kuro Interactive


 * 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   no consensus. L Faraone  04:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Kuro Interactive

 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:SOAP This is a page advertising a private company, and does not belong on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jael2222 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Looking at the article, I see independent reliable sources, and I see assertions that it is a notable company. The tone is not blatant advertising. —C.Fred (talk) 04:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Regarding the reliable sources, most small private companies such as this receive some passing coverage, but it does not mean they are a notable company. Every art student and creative shop with some showcased work might as well get their own Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jael2222 (talk • contribs) 07:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → ♠ Gƒoley ↔ Four ♣ ← 00:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep - C. Fred is so right.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * see WP:PERNOM "Comments adding nothing but a statement of support to a prior comment add little to the discussion. ". LibStar (talk) 13:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong delete 1 gnews hit . 3 are the sources are mere blogs and are not reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 13:58, 20 February 2011 (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.