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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Kitty Group

Kitty Group (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

small talent agency, no substantial sources. The ed who declined the speedy suggest a merge to a group it represents, but there is no indication its their only customer and would in any case be undue publicity. DGG ( talk ) 07:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 07:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 07:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• If no one finds any sources to prove notability, you can just merge it to " Kitty Films" for now. -- Moscow Connection ( talk) 16:06, 4 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete not merge because this stub is unsourced, fails WP:GNG, and not significantly covered in WP:RS. We can't just afford to add bunch of unsourced content to another article (itself of questionable notabilty) after it failed all Wikipedia guideline/policies and heading to deletion.  —  Ammarpad ( talk) 17:34, 4 November 2017 (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.