Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digiview Entertainment

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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Digiview Entertainment

Non-notable distributor of budget-priced DVDs. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would have made this a speedy for no claim of notability.--Pontificalibus (talk) 06:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A Google News search turns up some coverage [1]. FWIW, any shopper in the U.S. Wal-Mart or Dollar Tree stores cannot miss their DVD endcaps. Pastor Theo (talk) 11:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There isn't enough coverage for the distributor to be considered notable. There really is nothing notable about releasing DVDs of public ___domain material. I can download a movie off of the Internet Archive, burn it to a DVD, and sell it, but that doesn't mean that I deserve an article without any significant coverage. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 23:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete inadequate in-depth coverage in reliable sources to establish notability for WP:CORP. Drawn Some (talk) 03:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, yes, they exist, but there doesn't appear to be any actual indepth coverage of the business themselves. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Even though they do release a lot of public ___domain cartoons that have been released by many other distributors, I believe a lot of their programming is not otherwise available on DVD. They are also noteable in having been, seemingly, the most successful $1 DVD-type company. A good example of "The Wal-Mart Effect." Wiesnerc (talk) 23:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough coverage. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:26, 23 May 2009 (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.