Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Workpoint 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Workpoint Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
PROD contested by creator. Concern: Claims "multiple award-winning programmes" but gives no indication of what those awards are, no sources and doesn't appear to be notable in the article's current form. Eeekster (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I find "doesn't appear to be notable in the article's current form" to be a rather questionable argument. Notability is dependent on external coverage by verifiable sources, not Wikipedia's own treatment. An article about a notable subject may not have comprehensive coverage of the subject's sources of notability; this is not indication that the subject is not notable, but rather that the article needs to be expanded. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep—Efficient rescue by Paul, now has two RS references, notability is clear in the article text, and the puffery is gone. Good work! Livit⇑Eh?/What? 16:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per Livitup. Meets requirements. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:02, 16 March 2012 (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.