Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Third Bridge 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 of the debate was delete. RasputinAXP c 03:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So-called independent film production company, not ready for Sundance. Fails WP:CORP by a wide margin. 28 Googles, all told. Was Prod'ed, but tag removed with the comment, "This article presents information sought after by a decent selection of readers. While not heavily established online, Third Bridge Productions maintains a firm local standing". Calton | Talk 04:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Tychocat 05:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and as NN; one wonders exactly whom those "decent selection of readers" might be. RGTraynor 08:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Information about filmmaking companies, including independent ones, is actually interesting to many readers, and level of interest to a specific company can quickly rise. This isn't a two-word stub, but rather mostly appropriately written article, it just needs some link cleanup. Keeping such articles doesn't harm Wikipedia even if their subject is not widely known, while useful and somewhat interesting content deserves keeping. CP/M 15:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you actually read the article? This isn't a "filmmaking company", it's a bunch of high-school students with a high-end camcorder and delusions of Hollywood. --Calton | Talk 15:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No kidding; is anyone seriously proposing that the bar for whether an article is notable or not is whether the creator's a skilled writer? If so, sign me up. I bet I can whip out ten articles a day with spiffy text and infoboxes on completely petty subjects. RGTraynor 19:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not the bar, just the article itself is almost OK, and might be useful for people looking for indies info. Its subject exists, and, according to the claims, has at least some local acknowledgement. After all, deletion was once supposed to only remove useless or disputable info, not turn inclusion into award to be earned. CP/M 21:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It "claims" to have local acknowledgement, but WP:V still exists ... and what manner of indies info can be had from a bunch of high school kids without any legitimate claim to notability? There is no issue of "earning" some award; simply that a subject ought to be notable in order to merit mention in an encyclopedia. RGTraynor 21:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't mean the claim it won esteem, but rather their prodlist. They seem to be at least hired for doing some ads, including one for The Heidi Chronicles (film). CP/M 22:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well except:
- The film of The Heidi Chronicles is from 1995, which if you are correct suggests these guys made an ad when they were around 7 or 8 years old.
- Nothing suggests they were "hired" to make whatever it was an ad for (my guess: high-school theater production of the PLAY The Heidi Chronicles -- that the movie version is the subject seems purely to be your supposition).
- There's not the slightest suggestion they were "hired" to do anything whatsoever -- they don't even make that claim, in fact.
- There's not the slightest bit of third-party verification of anything in the article -- "products", projects, people -- and no, IMDB, as a user-built database, doesn't count.
- Twenty-eight Google hits, in fact, tells me that there ISN'T going to be much, if any, third-party verification. --Calton | Talk 00:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well except:
- I don't mean the claim it won esteem, but rather their prodlist. They seem to be at least hired for doing some ads, including one for The Heidi Chronicles (film). CP/M 22:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It "claims" to have local acknowledgement, but WP:V still exists ... and what manner of indies info can be had from a bunch of high school kids without any legitimate claim to notability? There is no issue of "earning" some award; simply that a subject ought to be notable in order to merit mention in an encyclopedia. RGTraynor 21:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not the bar, just the article itself is almost OK, and might be useful for people looking for indies info. Its subject exists, and, according to the claims, has at least some local acknowledgement. After all, deletion was once supposed to only remove useless or disputable info, not turn inclusion into award to be earned. CP/M 21:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No kidding; is anyone seriously proposing that the bar for whether an article is notable or not is whether the creator's a skilled writer? If so, sign me up. I bet I can whip out ten articles a day with spiffy text and infoboxes on completely petty subjects. RGTraynor 19:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you actually read the article? This isn't a "filmmaking company", it's a bunch of high-school students with a high-end camcorder and delusions of Hollywood. --Calton | Talk 15:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete per nom. Xyrael T 19:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete per nom. --MOE.RON talk | done | doing 00:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Having watched a few of their movies and looked in their discussion forum, all on their website at [1], I haven't found anything that makes me think they are anything other than a group of enthusiastic teenagers with an absorbing hobby. Jll 00:34, 4 June 2006 (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.