Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SOMOS 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 Stubify. There is a clear consensus that this article needs to be shortened with promotional material removed. There is no consensus about whether or not the studio itself is notable and so a future (though preferably not immediate) re-nomination would be appropriate to see if consensus could be found at that time. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:27, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SOMOS Films

SOMOS Films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Blatant advert. Not even as "good" as

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 16:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 16:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 16:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 16:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 16:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 16:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 16:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Advert is a content argument, not a notability one. If notable, then that just means the article needs to be rewritten to meet neutrality standards, not deleted. The deletion argument you're choosing seems to be
  WP:NCORP, but haven't really addressed the sourcing itself in regards to how it doesn't meet that. And there does seem to be sources available discussing the subject studio, such as this, this, this, and this within Spanish language sources. I'm not voting just yet, but I would like a proper deletion argument to be made first before I decide. Silverseren^C 20:53, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Stubify - Remove all after the
  lede paragraph. Wikipedia doesn't really have good procedures for dealing with advertising that gets into article space, and this AFD illustrates that problem, but further discussion of that problem belongs in a policy forum, and this is a content forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• comment SOMOS Films is clearly an influential entity and one of the leading streaming platforms for Latin America. If things need to be rewritten to not seem like an advert, we can fix that. Does not call for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeoDavidZellet (talk • contribs) 16:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but stubify I guess I will officially throw my vote out there. The subject of the studio definitely seems notable, based on available reliable sources. But the article is very promotional at the moment, so shortening it down to a single paragraph with the references I gave above and expanding from there would be the best option. Silverseren^C 21:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability isn't inherited - it may be that the studio has produced notable works but it doesn't appear to have resulted in the studio itself becoming notable. There's not a single reference that provides in-depth information on the company from an independent voice. Topic fails NCORP.
  HighKing⁺⁺ 20:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• That's not how
  WP:SNGs are about. In this case, extensive coverage of the company's works gives notability to the company itself as well. You should note that in INHERITED, the examples it gives of upward notability that don't count are a group a notable person was in and someone who has a notable relative. Those aren't the same thing as actual works made by a person/organization that forms the direct basis of notability itself. Silverseren^C 21:08, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I'm aware that there are four notability guidelines which are listed at
  HighKing⁺⁺ 14:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• "Somos Group apuesta por los largometrajes con Somos Films" [Somos Group bets on feature films with Somos Films]. Prensario Internacional. October 9, 2018.

So you mean sources like this, I presume? Silverseren^C 08:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as per HighKing. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and stubify per Silver seren.4meter4 (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per HighKing. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 00:56, 29 June 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.