Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SparkWare

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 per discussion. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SparkWare

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

Too soon. Reliable sources do not discuss the studio, or their new games. Both of them are not notable right now. AdrianGamer (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AdrianGamer (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AdrianGamer (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply still not enough considering it's a newly founded company and it's obvious to say there's not going to be enough yet. Delete for now at best, SwisterTwister talk 14:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 14:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete We're not here to promote potential projects. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Founded too recently, for now just a non-notable Kickstarter campaign. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The company is not yet notable. If the games are released and independent coverage appears then this could be re-examined. ZettaComposer (talk) 17:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. There doesn't look to exist significant in-depth coverage from secondary reliable sources, and to the point where an article can be created without the use of original research (required to meet GNG). NCORP is also not met, as it has not been the subject of multiple independent sources that cover the company in-depth. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all of the above.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:07, 14 April 2016 (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.