Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comedy Dynamics

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 delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy Dynamics

)

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

I don't see why this outfit, which merely releases stand-up comedy sets, is notable. There is a claim of Grammyness (under the old name), but apparently no Grammys were won--moreover, one would think that the honor would go to the people on the album, not to the record company. Also, lack of sourcing, etc. You'll find a kind of directory in the history, but I do not believe that this is the kind of label that ought to be deemed notable because there are releases by notable people: it's not the label in this case that produces albums; I think they just release them. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of
WP:GNG. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Comedy Dynamics is a comedy production and distribution company. Its independent archive is the largest in existence and it is second in producing content, only behind Comedy Central. It also produces a library of specials for Netflix. I am currently working on sourcing all of the releases. — Preceding

talk • contribs) 18:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete - unless better sources to establish notability are found and the COI issues are resolved. Eeekster (talk) 18:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Substantial improvements have been made and will continue to be made. I don't believe the page should be up for deletion anymore. comedydynamics — Preceding undated comment added 01:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are still not significant references from independent reliable sources, as required by
WP:CORP. --MelanieN (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

The organization or product HAS attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product, including The New York Times. Notability is not synonymous with fame or importance and the organization has had significant or demonstrable effects on culture and entertainment. Just because large organizations and their products are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability doesn’t mean smaller organizations and their products can’t be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products.ComedyGuy15 (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)(talk)[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.