Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cat Mother, Ltd.

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 05:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Mother, Ltd.

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

A defunct video game company that has no notability. It never released a single game, as its only developed game was unfinished when the company went out of business. The only source present in the article is to a blog, and is thus not a reliable source, and I am unable to find any other reliable sources that talk about the company in any meaningful way. The article has been unreferenced and orphaned since its creation in 2008, and I am finding no way to improve this. Rorshacma (talk) 22:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Rorshacma (talk) 22:58, 30 August 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) 23:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:N, and also to go a small step in correcting the a systemic bias that WP has towards video gaming topics. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N as noted above. Logical Cowboy (talk) 20:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yet again, I see an article being sent to AfD without even going through PROD, which is a much lighter and more efficient process. Considering this article doesn't make a credible claim of notability (none!), I would surmise it may even possibly qualify for CSD under A7. Salvidrim! 01:16, 6 September 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.