Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Three Point Capital

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. May be re-brought to AfD after a span of not less than 3 months. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 05:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Three Point Capital

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of any notability. Refs note that its arrived in Ohio and that it has a website. Packing the article out with film titles rather draws attention to the lack of general substance. All refs way below the line for notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:00, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - GretLomborg (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't the many films worked on clearly indicate notability? Also its a private company you cannot expect it to have many sources on it. Awilliams103 (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Awilliams103: Notability is not inherited. Working on a notable film does not make the company inherently notable. The general notability guideline is still the best baseline: has the company been written about in depth in multiple independent reliable sources? If a company is notable—public or private—it should meet that guideline. —C.Fred (talk) 21:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The Variety article goes into some depth—or it's parroted from a press release. I feel like it's too early to delete it; I'd like more time to do source-searching. That said, this is a keep "without prejudice": if three to six months pass and no sources are located, I think a second AfD nomination is in order. —C.Fred (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I went ahead and added some more sources and information and will continue to do so. Thanks for the info @C.Fred:. Awilliams103 (talk) 21:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and as previously noted, packing the article with film titles doesn't mean the company is notable since notability is not inherited. The Variety article fails the criteria for establishing notability WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND since the article relies almost exclusively on quotations and information from the company. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing: I am a little confused as you said it mostly relies on information from the company but only references it once for two sentences. Also which quotes are you referring too? A. Williams 00:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please evaluate the new sources that have been added to the article since nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 08:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: I'm really on the bubble about this article. On the one hand, the Variety article really does seem to be a pretty thorough profile-- I don't have any evidence that it's just parroted from a press release and it's a great source. The Hollywood Reporter piece and the Moviemaker Magazine piece seem good too (I've put a bullet list below that you can look at of all the new sources). I have to !vote for a weak keep, but honestly only just, and I feel hardpressed to imagine this article going past Start-class (couldn't find any other sources either). Also, Awilliams103, you're an employee of the company, right? I think it'd be good for transparency if you mention that somewhere on this thread.
- No Film School: Article is about summarizing different speakers, one of whom is an employee of the company. Not actually about the company.
- Justia: It's a legal filing. Has no impact on being notable.
- Hollywood Reporter: About the company filing a suit against the producers of Jobs. Still not the main focus of the article, but definitely much more central.
- Moviemaker Magazine: Seems notable-- couldn't find any sources on their editorial policy but it's probably because it's just really late as I'm writing this. Nomader (talk) 09:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- sourcing does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH; mostly passing mentions. Whatever content that's been recently added amounts to a directory listing and can just as effectively be housed on the company web site. Created and extensively edited by (what appears to be) and employee of the company; please see User_talk:Awilliams103#Your_username.

If this ends up as "keep" or "no consensus", then absolutely nuke the list of films -- it is excessive and promotional. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:56, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note here that although I !voted keep, I agree with K.e.coffman that the list of films should be removed. Nomader (talk) 15:13, 31 July 2017 (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.