Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CrowdStar

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. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 03:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CrowdStar

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

Non-notable company. It has produced some popular games but that does not make it a notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At time of nomination it had cites to 8 stories from reliable sources in business and video games press (VentureBeat, Bloomberg, San Francisco Business Times, TechCrunch, All Things D, Gamasutra). It meets WP:GNG. It's hard to see this nomination as being made in good faith: possibly the nominator thinks he/she can bring down the whole corrupt capitalist system by AfDing corporate pages on Wikipedia - if only that was all it took. --Colapeninsula (talk) 21:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing against the capitalist system but what I don't like is the WP is far to easily used to promote a commercial enterprise. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable company. Passes WP:GNG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Unless/until the nominator has a better deletion rationale, it sure looks like Colapeninsula's commentary on sources would trump the vague assertion of being "non-notable". Sergecross73 msg me 20:15, 24 December 2012 (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.