Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Why Not 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why Not Productions

Why Not Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

May not meet notability criteria for production films. Also, this article relies on a sole primary source. A Google search brought up no secondary sources about the production company.

Note: This discussion has been included in the

ping me) 23:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

ping me) 23:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

ping me) 23:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Agree with lack of notability: I did some searches in Newspapers.com, Google Books and Internet Archive Collections and found nothing substantial; several mentions in the Internet Archive, but they were mainly image credits and mentions in film or event advertisements. There might be a substantial body of work in French, but I'm not detecting that at this time. The French article has only two citations, while the Breton article has three; all share the single citation found in the English article. I'll look at bringing these citations into the English article, and if I need to change my opinion here, I will. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remains marginally notable based on reliable sources: I've added citations from the French and Breton articles. I am on the fence as to whether the potential is there for the emergence of sufficient reliable sources for notability to be achieved. This is a public company, and many, if not most, public companies have sufficient reliable source coverage to support an article. I'm thinking that the article should be given the benefit of the doubt at this point; allow it to survive and after a year, perhaps two, return and if article state has not progressed, suggest re-proposal for deletion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me)

  ping me) 04:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Strong keep L'Express and Telerama are sufficient secondary sources for a company behind major, significant films (Dheepan, I, Daniel Blake, A Prophet, Loveless- all Cannes Film Festival award-winners) Ribbet32 (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I'd rhetorically point out that notability of the pictures produced by the company does not make the company itself notable (for WP inclusion standards). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:38, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as there is just about enough coverage in reliable sources to barely pass
  WP:GNG regards Atlantic306 (talk) 18:52, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment Please post links to references that meet
    HighKing⁺⁺ 12:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Delete Since notability is not inherited, no indications of notability for this company. References fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and
  HighKing⁺⁺ 12:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Very weak keep. After doing an analysis of each of the sources, I believe this is a borderline case. If I have the reliability of one of the sources wrong, I would be happy to have someone correct me:

1. Looks like their personal profile on a website. Don't think it's anything reliable, though I could be wrong.
2. This one seems reliable, but I'm not sure it's enough to be significant coverage. But it's more than a trivial mention. I'm kind of on the fence as to whether this one could help establish the article's notability.
3. This one's probably the best source of all. It seems like
   Telerama.fr
   is a reliable source, and there is definitely significant coverage here.
4. I'm not seeing that this one mentions anything about Why Not Productions. Therefore, it doesn't help establish notability at all.
5. Just trivial coverage. The only mention of Why Not Productions is "The indie label will produce and co-finance the film with Why Not Productions," with nothing else.

Overall, I've come to a similar conclusion as Ceyockey. It's borderline on meeting

WP:GNG, but I think in cases like these, it's better to give the benefit of the doubt and keep the article.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 14:02, 21 September 2018 (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.