Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brainpool TV

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. No agreement and minimal participation after two relists. RL0919 (talk) 04:17, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brainpool TV

[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)

I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I know this is the English Wikipedia, but I have seen quite a large portion of little-known television channels and networks having their own article. Do the rules change if it is from a non-English country? Foxnpichu (talk) 12:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable TV production company, well known even to people not watching TV for producing Harald Schmidt's and Stefan Raab's shows. Lots of studies on Gbooks, "largest German comedy provider", something about their early business strategy, not to mention the massive referencing on German Wikipedia, including Handelsblatt, FAZ, Tagesspiegel (back in 2001). Recent Gnews hits: [1], [2], [3]. —Kusma (t·c) 10:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The web references you've produced do not meet the criteria for establishing notability as they are largely based on either a tv show that the company produces (notability is not inherited) or they're based on company announcements (no Independent Content) or a blog (not a reliable source). The books may meet the criteria. I am unable to get a reasonable translation but the rough one I did manage to generate looks good. Perhaps someone else can comment on the books? If the books meet the criteria, I'm happy to withdraw the nomination. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:57, 5 November 2019 (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.