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. Cirt (talk) 18:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The article's author has admitted on the talk page to creating the page in anticipation of future notability, rather than in response to current notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep: There is some media coverage, maybe a little thin, but to the point. Paul Allen's involvement probably compensates for the crystal ball aspect. Favonian (talk) 22:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mr. Allen is an extremely wealthy individual, and has probably invested in lots of startups. If the company can show some notability through reliable sources, great. If not, why race to create the article? Wait until the company meets guidelines, and then recreate. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've admitted the invalidity of citing future notability. The fact that the Category: United States software company stubs exists does seem to imply usefulness of basic information about small companies such as Kiha Software. This particular company does have some interesting recent media coverage. Keeping the stub and adding more information when there is more publicly available would seem useful. Nedhayes (talk) 22:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. CRYSTAL aside, the only RS appears to be this article. No prejudice against recreation as a neutral article. tedder (talk) 23:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not yet notable. Speedy tag removed by an SPA with no edit summary. Hairhorn (talk) 03:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The coverage is insufficient to establish notability. That there are stubs on wikipedia do not imply that non-notable companies should have an article; it implies that notable companies have articles that need expansion. - Whpq (talk) 15:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It isn't notable. NeoJustin (talk) 05:55, 7 September 2009 (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.