Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dubtitled 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 delete. Tone 20:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dubtitled Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:CORP, coverage is only trivial. Cameron Scott (talk) 14:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- while Kung Faux may be notable, the company that created it does not inherit its notability. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Lack of sourcing. - MrOllie (talk) 04:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Sarek. I had tagged the article as A7 originally after reviewing sources and finding a lack of notability. The article underwent some changes and A7 did not apply as it asserted notability, but I feel the references still do not prove notability. If this company develops more than one property that is notable I may feel differently. --Torchwood Who? (talk) 05:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom Majorclanger (talk) 14:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Contains no powerful external links. Just kidding... Actually, this stub should be integrated into the Kung Faux page, if the info isn't there already. Save that one, kill this one. Carrite (talk) 15:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 24 August 2010 (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.