Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cerulean Studios

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. Daniel (talk) 23:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cerulean Studios

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I cannot find evidence of independent notability for the company, separate from Trillian, which is notable. Redirect was reverted without comment, so we're here. Star Mississippi 01:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 01:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 01:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 01:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Trillian. I cant find anything in the way of notability. I'm not sure why the redirect was removed without an explanation unless it was by accident. Perhaps AirportExpert would like to weigh in?--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 02:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, leaving the edit summary blank was accidental. Deleting the article should be fine however, but I think it would be appropriate to merge more components of the Cerulean Studios article with the Trillian page, to give further context behind the company that created the software. Trillian seems to be the only product of the company with any real notability, so its probably for the best that the two remain on the same page.--AirportExpert (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)AirportExpert[reply]

Thanks AirportExpert, but I'm slightly confused. That's what I had done, and exactly what my line of thinking was. If you agree, why did you change it back to its own page? Star Mississippi 17:45, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I just wanted to be able to visualize the layout of the article independently, and transfer everything over to the redirect page, such as the infobox. The sandbox would've been a better use of that though I suppose, since I ended up not being able to finish and left the article only partially edited. Either way, lesson learned.--AirportExpert (talk) 19:06, 15 June 2021 (UTC)AirportExpert[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Strong delete. WP:MULTSOURCES and WP:CORPDEPTH are not even close here. The company itself is not notable. How did it stay on Wikipedia for 15 years? Asketbouncer (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even remotely notable Dexxtrall (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2021 (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.