Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piraya Film

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 idea of renaming the article to List of films by Piraya Films seems a possbility. Black Kite (talk) 18:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Piraya Film

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

My prod reasoning, namely that there aren't any sources that show that it meets WP:COMPANY, still holds. This article has been undeleted as requested at WP:REFUND, even though no actual reason for contesting the proposed deletion has been given. Perhaps, Oddleiv Vik had mistakenly asked for the article instead of Draft:Piraya Film to be undeleted. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Perhaps it should be moved to Draft but as of now, I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a terrible article and can be improved through the normal editing process. While there doesn't seem to be any WP:SIGCOV of the subject, for film production companies, if they have produced multiple notable films, the company is notable. — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 15:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would be very surprised if The Mole: Undercover in North Korea does not bag some major awards in the next 12-16 months. — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 16:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ad Meliora You say for film production companies, if they have produced multiple notable films, the company is notable - can you point to a guideline/policy which says that? I've checked NCORP which is the applicable SNG for companies/organizations and it doesn't say anything or the sort. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' Yes, regarding provided sources it fails both wp:GNG and the SNG. But they have produced 7 wp:notable film (with Wikipedia articles) and 40 films and have been making films for at least 22 years....sources almost certainly exist. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Including one Oscar nominated film, which by the way has a Wikipedia article for the accolades it has received... — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 12:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 12:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment,HighKing, I think WP:NORG is the guideline for this subject. Glee^anon 19:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gleeanon409 - correct WP:NORG / WP:NCORP (same thing) is the applicable SNG HighKing⁺⁺ 10:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WP:NORG examples of substantial coverage includes "A scholarly article, a book passage, or ongoing media coverage focusing on a product or organization,", "A report by a consumer watchdog organization on the safety of a specific product," and "An extensive how-to guide written by people wholly independent of the company or product (e.g. For Dummies)." and I plan to add citations that fall squarely within this domain. — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 15:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Maybe,~~ for now, open to WP:HEYMAN, we have notable films, but like products for any company that isn’t enough to confer notability on the company itself. @Ad Meliora: I did notice quite a few journal articles on the “find sources” link on the top of this page, click scholar. I also suggest searching for articles that discuss key people in the company and see if they can help, if I have time I’ll do the same. Glee^anon 19:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Gleeanon409 for the suggestion. There are certainly a lot of references to the company and its founders. I'll work on adding these to the article in the next couple of days. In the meantime, I suggest resubmitting this article to extend the AfD discussion time. — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Keep, I found almost fifty sources, mostly in non-English publications in at least three countries. I posted them to the article talk page. I think this meets GNG, and more sleuthing will yield even more results. I don’t think renaming is needed, fundamentally it would be the same article with the company information sent to a background section. Better to leave it as is and improve it. Glee^anon 16:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Gleeanon409, I appreciate all the work but have you read WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND? Can you please provide links here to the best WP:THREE references. These references are to contain in-depth information about *the company* (WP:CORPDEPTH) with original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject (WP:ORGIND). It is unlikely that anyone will to look at 48 references (WP:REFBOMB) especially when the vast majority that I've randomly selected are either mentions-in-passing, are based on reviews of one of their movies (WP:NOTINHERITED) or rely entirely on interviews with sources affiliated with the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My thinking is that as ‘List of films ...’ we certainly will keep it, and undoubtedly include all the company information. Then I easily locate nearly fifty sources which suggests GNG is met even if less information spread over many sources. There is also that I’ve found sources in four languages across at least as many countries. This too suggests we are possibly only at the tip of the iceberg.
The spirit of these guidelines is to ensure what we publish is accurate and verifiable and I think this article is well acceptable on that basis. They seem to be reputable, notable and even successful, YMMV. Glee^anon 20:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You could rename it List of films by Piraya Films since its mostly just a list with a brief description before it. Seven have their own articles. Or find someone who can speak the language their films are released in to search for reliable sources discussing them. Common sense would be that a film studio is notable based on the films it creates, not random coverage it might have gotten somewhere. Remember, the notability guidelines all have a disclaimer at the top of them which reads: "A film company This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Dream Focus 11:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd have no problem with that suggestion, takes it out from the strict WP:NCORP SNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but agree with good suggestion could rename it List of films by Piraya Films. Right cite (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2020 (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.