Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kuju (company)

Kuju (company)

[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)

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Most of what's out there are trivial announcements and press releases. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:53, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and England. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:53, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appears rather well established per MCV, how much of a BEFORE was done here? IgelRM (talk) 11:38, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly enough to make me do an AfD. If you do have some proof of notability besides being old or a success in Britain, then you are free to show it, of course, I am always willing to withdraw if I have missed something major. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:09, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page you referenced clearly indicates an article does not require international importance to be included. The company has published a number of significant titles and is seen as very successful within the UK gaming scene, so I see no reason it warrants deletion.

This article has survived for nearly 20 years, so it's reasonable to expect someone would have already AfD'd the article if it didn't meet the criteria for notability. GeekBurst (talk) 23:05, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No it's really not reasonable to expect that. Many articles survive for that long. In fact, I'd assume that a large chunk of the articles on Wikipedia are non-notable, just ignored or off in a dusty corner somewhere. The bar for "spam" is pretty low, and just includes blatant promotion, while articles that seem fine, but are made for promotion with no reliable sources, are allowed to pass simply because they look okay. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:36, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article just needs a cleanup, it doesn't need TNT. I can see this company has released a number of titles, including some fairly significant ones. A lack of international significance doesn't preclude inclusion in Wikipedia, otherwise companies that only operate in a single country wouldn't have their own articles. GeekBurst (talk) 23:01, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have not offered any actual policy based evidence it should be kept, simply saying that it made "significant" titles. This may be, but that just means the titles are notable. Notability is not inherited by a company for notable things they made. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:31, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I Am going to point you to Wikipedia:Subjective importance GeekBurst (talk) 00:05, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Subjective importance is about how things are NOT notable even if some people believe them to be important. Having WP:SIGCOV is really the only thing that can prove notability, full stop. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:02, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Delete~~ - Found one piece of SIGCOV: 5-page article in Edge magazine: [1]. Mostly about a game they made but there's enough about the company itself. Unfortunately one article is not enough for notability. Can't think of any WP:ATD target either... --Mika1h (talk) 22:50, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[2] Article on Kuju's delve into VR development, counts as sigcov.

[3] also works too. Go D. Usopp (talk) 01:39, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The additional coverage by GamesIndustry and Game Developer seems enough for a keep. There's also this article by MCV that rises above routine coverage: [4]. --Mika1h (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That article appears to be mostly about Curve Digital, which already has a page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:09, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to this: [5] Kuju and Curve Digital formed a new company called Curve Digital Entertainment. That's what the article seems to be about, very confusing. --Mika1h (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That appears to mean that Curve Digital/Catalis is the notable entity if Kuju isn't historically notable. PocketGamer.biz IgelRM (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another one from MCV about the founders. IgelRM (talk) 17:48, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes GNG, though more work is needed. [6] as an additional sigcov source besides the sources I listed. Go D. Usopp (talk) 01:43, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Usopp, but per WP:GNG, all references that count towards notability cannot be from the same site. They have to all come from different authors and publications. I considered this already. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:20, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 3 mentioned sources are written by 3 different people across 2 publications? GeekBurst (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I should specify that it has to be both different authors and different publications. So it would need to be 3 people, 3 publications to meet the typical minimum standard of notability. Ones from the same author/publication are usable for informational purposes, of course, but not for the purpose of proving something is notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:10, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some coverage exists and also have notable works (60+ video games, which have wiki articles and reviews), so the company is notable, as the works are a representation of the main company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkm777 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from the company's products. This was clearly said above. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:51, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]