Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coolhouse Productions

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 08:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coolhouse Productions[edit]

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

1 ref and its not about the company. CerealKillerYum (talk) 05:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well... it is, sort of. It's about a game that the company created, so that does show some notability for them as they can gain notability via the products that they create and release. However I do want to stress that one source is not enough to show notability, so the one source doesn't really accomplish much. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could not find sources on Google News except for one article in a foreign language which did not seem likely to amount to much. II | (t - c) 05:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 07:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 07:29, 30 October 2014 (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) 13:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence has been provided in the past two weeks showing that this company is notable by Wikipedia's standards. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Multiple searches turn up no evidence of notability, nor does the solitary ref review of a product by the firm provide that. AllyD (talk) 08:05, 14 November 2014 (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.