Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assorted Motion Pictures

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.  JGHowes  ^talk 22:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Assorted Motion Pictures

Assorted Motion Pictures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

I first thought about moving this into draftspace. But I could not find even any single sources other than some linkedin profiles and some directory like websites. No reliable sources exist at present giving enough sigcov thus failing GNG Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 16:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC) striking as the nominator has been blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:52, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 16:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 16:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 16:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources cited only mention the company in passing: accordingly, it fails WP:SIRS. JBchrch (talk) 16:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kashmorwiki first of all I would like to say there are a lot of coverage where assorted have already mentioned there. And Assorted Motion Pictures have already produced some movies. And in there on movies coverage you can see Assorted Motion Pictures are mentioned. So I think article should stay.

Hey JBchrch yes you are absolutely correct the sources cited only mention the company. But in wikipedia i saw a lot of article which have same issue. They only have mentioned on the sources they have provided. If you want then you can check( Surinder Films, Acropolis Entertainment, Magic Moments Motion Pictures, 4 Lions Films, DJ's a Creative Unit, Sphere Origins). Now my question is, if these article(which I mentioned) are eligible to stay on the article space. Then why my created article won't be. I had read all the rules. And when I saw these article then only i start created Assorted Motion Pictures So if these article is eligible to pass every rules then I think Assorted Motion Pictures is also eligible to stay on wikipedia. DasSoumik (talk)

Hi DasSoumik, I understand thAT it's frustrating to see your article be the subject of a deletion discussion while other sub-par articles remain on the website. However, in my view, these articles aren't eligible as well, and for the exact same reasons. Please note, additionally, that no one made the determination that they were actually eligible: it's just that no one has noticed yet that they weren't eligible. In any case, have you looked whether you could find coverage of Assorted Motion Pictures that would match the criterias of WP:SIRS? JBchrch (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JBchrch, it is not frustrating. I just told you the matter. If those articles are eligible then Assorted Motion Pictures is also eligible. That's what I think.

DasSoumik per my answer, if what you say is true, I would not consider these articles to be eligible. JBchrch (talk) 20:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I missed the ping somehow! Hello DasSoumik, from my experience at several AFD's, there is no point in arguing as per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Like JBchrch said, some articles remain here unnoticed for several years, while some get noticed within weeks. It might be because we have improved set of toolsets and bots to patrol new pages now. If you want the similiar articles like this to get removed from here, you may nominate those for AFD. Nobody is going to object you for that move. Unless you or anyone comes up with any sources giving this company some significant coverage, my stand remains the same. Good luck. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 00:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC) struck confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment hello Kashmorwiki, thank you for your reply. Now wait for other editor to come and comment here.
• Delete - simply not enough in-depth coverage to pass either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this production has produced many movies and recently their produced movie Rickshawala is nominated for Dadasaheb Phalke Award. And I got an article so I have added. I don't know it's enough or not, as I don't know much more about rules. But as per my knowledge 1 article is enough for article of production house. Thanks TryingToDo (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the relevant policy here is WP:ORGCRITE. JBchrch (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article has short but well written with reliable sources, passes Wiki guidelines to retain Applus2021 (talk) 11:44, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Applus2021, it is not sufficient for an article to have reliable source. WP:ORGCRITE calls for significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth. JBchrch (talk) 23:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JBchrch hello, as you can see Assorted Motion Picture's movie Rickshawala is nominated for Dada shaheb Phalke Award. And you know Dada Shaheb Phalke Award is so much prestigious award. So when a film is nominated for such kind of prestigious award then how can it not be reliable ? TryingToDo (talk) 05:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC) comment written by DasSoumik (talk · contribs) [1][reply]

DasSoumik (talk · contribs), why did you sign as TryingToDo (talk · contribs) in the comment above? [2] JBchrch (talk) 10:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JBchrch i do edit from phone so was trying to copy paste from my previous comment on this discussion(from here [3]). But I had copied wrong user's id that is my mistake and also my phone's problem. I was coping my sigh from previous discussion of my sign on this discussion. So didn't notice this. Thank you. DasSoumik (talk)

DasSoumik, gotcha. Be careful when doing that. Regarding your argument: you are arguing for a form of WP:INHERITED notability, which is not sufficient. Again, WP:ORGCRITE applies here. JBchrch (talk) 13:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JBchrch thank you for pointing out my mistake regarding signature which I didn't notice. Next time surely I'll be careful about my signature. DasSoumik (talk)

• Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Kolma8 (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2021 (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.