Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Screen Media Films

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 no consensus. The arguments weigh out. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 17:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Screen Media Films

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

No suggestion of notability Rathfelder (talk) 13:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. No indications of notability. Notability is not inherited. -- HighKing 18:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per HighKing, article subject does not inherit (WP:NOTINHERITED) notability from other companies' films.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. No evidence of passing WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Bearcat (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Keep per Bythebooklibrary's improvements. I find the tone of the new additions a little bit advertorialized, but that can be dealt with through the editing process and isn't a reason to delete an article that's covered by adequate sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have re-worked the article and added some new references. Pinging Bearcat, SamHolt6, HighKing, Rathfelder to Have a second look. The article subject now passes WP:GNG. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 14:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Much improved thank you. Happy to withdraw my proposal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rathfelder (talk • contribs) 15:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I originally closed this discussion as Withdrawn by nominator; however since there are already differing opinions between users, I have reinstated this discussion. Pinging Rathfelder. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment Thank you Rathfelder and Bearcat. I will work at getting it less promotional. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree the article has more references, there are still no indications of notability. The references are a series of run-of-the-mill business deals, with no depth of coverage of the actual company. These references fail WP:CORPDEPTH. It doesn't matter if they "pick up the exclusive rights for" the biggest movie on the planet since notability is not inheritied. The article still fails WP:SPIP and the list of products ... sorry movies ... is the same as any other company's catalogue of products and fails since it is promotional. In order for this company to meet the requirements to pass GNG is for two references that, in turn, meet the requirements for establishing notabilty - two references that don't rely on company sources or announcements of new "products", containing in-depth information about the company. This is still clearly a Delete unless some of the Keep !voters can point to some references. -- HighKing 18:33, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Most of the article wording is a direct copy of the first paragraph of this, so both a primary source and a WP:COPYVIO? Without that, the article would be little more than a "Selected films" list. AllyD (talk) 06:31, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but as it is well attributed, under WP:V's section WP:SELFPUB it is not disallowed as long as not used for Notability. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable film distribution article; sources fail WP:CORPDEPTH. The copy is highly promotional and also appears to be a copyvia. It's a "delete" all around for me. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:26, 28 September 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.