Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ubisoft Singapore

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 merge to Ubisoft. Sandstein 17:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ubisoft Singapore

Delete non-notable subsidiary with no content that needs to be merged back to the parent company Mayalld (talk) 07:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Redirect The company has notable coverage here, here, here, here, here, here and here, here, here, here, here and finally here. What the company does not have is they don't have products. If there are products the article can exist till then redirect to UbiSoft.--SkyWalker (talk) 07:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 11:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to an article about Ubisoft. Maybe if more information surfaces, a split would make sense. But in the meantime, there's not much coverage for this office, although it is barely notable. Better to have one great article than a useless stub. Randomran (talk) 05:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ubisoft. Nifboy (talk) 00:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than enough sources are listed by SkyWalker for the article to meet the WP:GNG. If it meets the general guideline it doesn't need to meet WP:CORP. Even if they haven't produced products yet, the sources listed above are more than enough for a start class article on the subject. Protonk (talk) 20:01, 16 August 2008 (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.