- 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. MBisanz talk 04:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Snowgum Films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 08:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for failing WP:CORP. Negligible results in news search. Web search shows majority results from social networking or video sharing sites. No third-party coverage. LeaveSleaves 17:52, 12 January 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) 00:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Needs sourcing for the awards. The article needs to show the connection between the company and the notability of its projects. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete as unsourcable. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I wish to note that my struck comment was intended for a different AfD. I still feel that notability for Snowgum might be shown if awards sourcing is done. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I found a source for one of the prizes [1]. But I doubt it helps the article in any way. The prize at the film festival has is under public's choice and not a jury award. Moreover it was given to the film and the writer-director, not the production company. Plus the film shared this prize with another film. You also need to consider that this article comes more under WP:CORP, and needs to satisfy notability requirements as such. LeaveSleaves 20:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. And I am not at this time opining a keep nor a delete... as conecting the company and the notability of its projects would be paramount. Certainly smaller independents do not have the easy-to-source notability of their bigger cousins (IE: Sony, MGM, Fox, Warners, etc.), so if it can be somehow established that the company creates notable projects... it would be a step in the right direction. But as you point out, a shared audience jury-award does not quite do it. This is the biggest problem with articles about smaller companies. They exist. They create films. They get their films out there... All the same basics as the big boys. But fighting WP:NOTINHERITED, it is difficult to source an individual notability. I'd love to see an WP:RS that tells of the company itself. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is lspace.org, SF Crowsnest, Snh.com, a similar story at theage.com, freelancing-gods.com, fantasy-fan.org, and Dreamers.com (google translation from Spanish), which are about the company in relationship (naturally) to their projects. And then we have a number of articles available about its founder. Gona be a toughie. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. And I am not at this time opining a keep nor a delete... as conecting the company and the notability of its projects would be paramount. Certainly smaller independents do not have the easy-to-source notability of their bigger cousins (IE: Sony, MGM, Fox, Warners, etc.), so if it can be somehow established that the company creates notable projects... it would be a step in the right direction. But as you point out, a shared audience jury-award does not quite do it. This is the biggest problem with articles about smaller companies. They exist. They create films. They get their films out there... All the same basics as the big boys. But fighting WP:NOTINHERITED, it is difficult to source an individual notability. I'd love to see an WP:RS that tells of the company itself. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep per rescue. Company is getting coverage (minimal) for their work... and their works are themselves receiving coverage. Its a squeeker... but I think it now just tickles over WP:CORP without having the share notability. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:54, 17 January 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.