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 keep. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NTDEC[edit]

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

Other than some news items about the lawsuit, like the one in New York Times back in 1993, and the six-in-one cartridge, the company doesn't appear to be notable enough for inclusion - there doesn't seem to be any other substantial coverage on the court case. Blake Gripling (talk) 05:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The company is rather famous and notable in that, along with many (like Bit Corporation or Thin Chen Enterprise), made at that time the history of the gaming industry in Taiwan. NTDEC is still active today but under the new name of Asder, also no longer working in that sector. Luigi1090 (talk) 12:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - You have something of a point, but while as you said it was established at the time when the Taiwanese video game industry is still in its infancy, there seems to be an apparent lack of definitive info on the firm. Then again I wanted the article to stay up too, given its role and notoriety as one of several companies whom Nintendo hammered for large-scale bootlegging. Blake Gripling (talk) 12:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Comment - I had searched and controlled all over the web the information about the company (in all languages): they are there but the only real problem is its activity during the "early" '80s, and I refer to those after NTDEC (now Asder) was founded, since they started making games and making piracy in 1988/1989. Luigi1090 (talk) 18:14, 25 March 2014 (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) 00:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: reasonable amount of coverage; I'm sure that there's more coverage in contemporary newspapers that aren't online. Stuartyeates (talk) 11:00, 12 April 2014 (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.