Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloodlust Software

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 only keep !vote implies that notability is inherited from potentially notable products (Genecyst and NESticle); it isn't. Salvidrim! ✉ 04:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodlust Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Marked as questionable notability since 2009. I am neutral but leaning towards delete. WP:CSB is of note in this case. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're neutral, why are you nominating it for AfD? Speedy keep per WP:SK1. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I am leaning towards delete. I nominated it because it has been marked as questionable notability since 2009. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the article could be improved, the fact alone that Bloodlust is the developer of Genecyst and NESticle is enough to be notable. If Bloodlust had only developed a single notable program, the articles could be merged but since it's at least two programs, WP’s policy states that editorial judgment can justify a separate article. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There does not appear to be enough source materials to write an article using secondary sources. CorporateM (Talk) 17:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 01:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:CORP. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:01, 10 January 2013 (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.