Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QLOC


 * 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

QLOC

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article was reverted out of move to draftspace. The company QLOC is not the subject of significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search, which provides a torrent of one-sentence mentions (mainly that QLOC is the localizer for a single game) and nothing in-depth about the company or its history, even from our Polish sources. Anything at greater length is a press release, such as a job listing, and that doesn't count for notability. I would be fine with a redirect to the mention I added at Capcom, since the two companies are documented as working together. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please ping me. czar 16:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  czar  16:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  czar  16:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions.  czar  16:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as the company is unlikely solidly independently notable for a separate article, perhaps best known through the listed games. SwisterTwister   talk  05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Redirect - nomination sums it up pretty well - sources make passing mentions here and there, but none cover the company itself in significant detail. I do think it would be a plausible search term though, considering the passing mentions and sources that can verify bare-bones facts about the company. It seems a redirect could be more complicated than I thought, and isn't getting any consensus here so far, so no need to hold things up. I'm not against one, but don't find it to be crucial either. Sergecross73   msg me  19:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per WP:GNG and nom. If redirected, the target should be parent company 1C Company. -- ferret (talk) 02:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't see how this CORPSPAM passes WP:COMPANY. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 17:26, 26 January 2016 (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.