Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ORBIS Production

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 Draftify. Should not be returned to mainspace until the issues identified have been corrected, preferably through submitting to WP:AFC.‎. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ORBIS Production

[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)

Promotional article with multiple iterations of press releases as sources. No evidence of notability. JTtheOG (talk) 23:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC) I support a decision to Draftify. JTtheOG (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Photography, Companies, and Italy. JTtheOG (talk) 23:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is one of the best combined PR, advertising and marketing campaign here. This looks like Wikipedia is their company website. All sources cited are completely unreliable and there is no need to list and Analyse them one after the other. The sources are distributed paid for articles. Mekomo (talk) 11:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mekomo, sorry for the trouble! Since I've been contributing to Wikipedia for a few months now (I initially started out of curiosity without being registered) and this is one of my first pages (see, for example, the one on Mario Orfeo), could you explain better why these sources are not acceptable? I understand that some sites are business directories, but others are from independent outlets, and they don't seem to be paid articles to me. Jerabotto (talk) 08:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JTtheOG and thanks for the feedback. I'm new to Wikipedia, and of course, before trying to create a page, I spent some time exploring the portal. While editing pages like Martha Production, Indiana Production e The Gunther Corporation I tried to follow the same style to make as few mistakes as possible. Could you help me understand in broad terms the differences between those pages and the one I proposed? Jerabotto (talk) 08:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jerabotto: Hello there. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. The only sources with significant coverage of the company are press releases. This one is even published directly onto PRnewswire.com, while exact copies are blasted onto topvideoproduction.com and Yahoo Finance. The IndieWrap article is clearly not independent either, as it uses the same kind of promotional language and ends with a link to the company's social media. Everything else are passing mentions. JTtheOG (talk) 08:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response, I think I understand now. If I were able to find third-party and more reliable sources, could that change anything, or is the decision taken at this point? Jerabotto (talk) 08:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Independent reliable sources which cover the subject directly and in-depth, yes. See WP:GNG for more detail on this. And no, no decision has been made. This discussion will be open for a week but could be extended beyond that. JTtheOG (talk) 08:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, I've already made some corrections after your suggests. In the next days I will try to add new references if I can! Jerabotto (talk) 11:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only mentions of the company name in short articles about projects. Nothing substantial that I can find. As this article has few edits beyond those of the creator it may be suitable for a move to draft, and perhaps to be taken through WP:AFC. Lamona (talk) 00:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lamona, thanks for the suggestion. I’m continuing to add more sources and refine the text as much as possible. A question: is the move to a draft requested by the admins, or should I proceed with it myself? Jerabotto (talk) 08:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should allow this AfD to complete first. Then the info here might help you WP:Drafts#Moving_articles_to_draftspace. (I've never done a move to draft, but if you need help, the WP:Teahouse is the go-to place.) Lamona (talk) 21:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Barring that, Delete. An editor involved in creating the article says they are working on improving the article and finding more appropriate sources for it, so I feel like turning it into a draft would be an acceptable alternative. If it continues to fail notability as a draft, then it won't be approved and will fade out of existence to my understanding. --Brocade River Poems (She/They) 11:41, 18 November 2024 (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.