Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uncommon Productions

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. postdlf (talk) 16:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uncommon Productions

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

Unsourced document, unclear that the article is factual. TRL (talk) 03:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added several references, including two concerning a court case over one of their documentary films. (I also notice that there were already other references concerning that case already on this page.) These address the nominator's rationale concerning sourcing and fact, neither of which is normally an AfD consideration. As to notability - which is - I am as yet undecided as to whether filmmaker and legal defendent status in themselves constitute notability. AllyD (talk) 05:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable. I have added to the article half a dozen references from mainstream newspapers. Four of their films are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles, and one won a notable award. --MelanieN (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with grateful thanks to both AllyD and MelanieN for their efforts to serve the project. Well done. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable. I also don't see any indication that WP:BEFORE was followed. SL93 (talk) 01:02, 24 July 2013 (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.