Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Special K Software


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 12:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Special K Software

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I don't see any notability. Prod was contested in 2010 without explanation, and the concern is still unaddressed. None of the "citations" (scare quotes because 3 of the 4 failed verification) mention Special K anywhere on the page. Kilopi (talk) 06:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 12:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 12:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I see this page as valuable and useful to the public looking up the origin of this company.  The company is real and the general public are aware of the company through its products distributed. A Bing search for "Special K Software" returns 1,320 hits, which has to be an indicator of public interest and relevance. By including this deletion in the game-related deletion discussion, there seems to be a misapprehension that this site is for a particular game, when it is actually for the company that produces games and other software for release. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardsmagic (talk • contribs) 00:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Arguments like it's useful and search engine hits are supposed to be avoided. They don't establish notability, which is needed in order to keep the article. If you want to keep it, it'd be best to present sources where the company is covered, separate from the company itself. (ie don't give the company's website.)
 * Also, its pretty common for video game companies to be discussed in the video game section like this. I doubt there's a misconception there, and if there is, it'd be cleared up by our collective comments. Sergecross73   msg me   21:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Try as I might, with a number of search variations, can't find any decent 3rd party refs. Doctorhawkes (talk) 14:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. There's no evidence of notability. Nick-D (talk) 07:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - I couldn't find any coverage either. Fails WP:GNG. Sergecross73   msg me   15:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:39, 15 February 2012 (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.