Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kronos Digital Entertainment

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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kronos Digital Entertainment

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Only reference is a single interview on a blog page. No independent sources or google hits outside of comprehensive databases like IGN and MobyGames. Kuguar03 (talk) 05:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete gnews doesn't produce indepth significant coverage thus fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 06:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 08:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've found a few more sources (it doesn't help that they are often referred to as "Kronos" or "Kronos Digital", or that much of their work gets credited to Eidos or Vic Tokai, or that they haven't had an active web presence in years). I could flesh out the article a fair bit from the Stan Liu interview, which is full of info.I haven't added anything from that interview because I'd like to see what can be built from other sources first. Reading WP:CORPDEPTH, I think the current sources (I'll try to find more when I'm not so tired) establish the variety of sources, and the interview provides enough content "to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub". Although the other sources don't provide a wealth of information, the information they contain could not be considered trivial by WP:CORPDEPTH's standards. I realize that pulling the bulk of content from one interview may not be ideal, but consider it a secondary version of sourcing information from a company's "history" or "about us" page (the difference being that this is first-party info in response to, and filtered by, a second party). Again, the circumstances aren't ideal, but enough to pass WP:CORP. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 09:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per the existence of sources uncovered by JohnnyMrNinja. Additional SPS sourcing can be found on the internet archive here (Useful information can only be found in the pre-2003 dates). -Thibbs (talk) 15:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per research by JohnnyMrNinja above. Bienfuxia (talk) 11:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Good research JohnnyMrNinja.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2011 (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.