Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beeshu, Inc.

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. The editor who had done work to try and improve the article asserted it could not be done to a satisfactory level, and was not challenged. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beeshu, Inc.[edit]

[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)

Doesn't pass WP:NCORP. A non-notable defunct company Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Have yet to actually make a vote, but Web Archive brings up quite a few results. Obviously, I'd have to check all of them to make sure they're not trivial mentions, but some I've seen I'd count as being significant coverage, such as this Computer Play article from 1988. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 16:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this, I had no idea that all the old magazines this might have been mentioned in are archived and text searchable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 14:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep that could be swayed by opposing evidence, based on the apparent failure of WP:BEFORE. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 09:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, internet searching gave no results, and looking though the internet archive search links mostly appear to be passing references. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There are no mentions in current online reliable sources, some WP:PASSING in the Internet Archive, as well as some WP:RUNOFTHEMILL via Newspapers.com, but nothing to satisfy WP:GNG. Also pinging @Vaticidalprophet, who asked for a WP:BEFORE. IceWelder [✉] 20:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added all applicable sources to the article. IceWelder [✉] 22:50, 30 January 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.