Talk:Malagurski Cinema

Proposed deletion
I am proposing this article for deletion on two grounds. Firstly the article cites no sources which are independent, relying solely on Malagurski.com for it's information. Secondly the article is essentially a WP:CONTENTFORK of Boris Malagurski, whose films are the only output of Malagurski Cinema. It may possibly be the case that sufficient RS could be found to establish WP:Notability for the film company, however all such RS that I have seen use the term connected to BM himself and his films. IMO, no useful purpose is served by having this as a seperate page and any independently sourced, factual info would easily merge into the film makers page. Pincrete (talk) 21:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * If you compare this article with other articles in category Film production companies of Canada such as Science North Production Team, Rapid Heart Pictures, Protocol Entertainment, Moving Tales, Leda Serene Films, Inflo Films, Hiltz Squared Media Group, CaribbeanTales, Couzin Films, you will find that those articles aren't better by any means, nor have a valid reference in addition to primary sources. But they still exist and aren't subject to deletion. Further to this, many articles in category Film production companies from other countries have the same purpose as this one. IndexAccount (talk) 10:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * IndexAccount, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not here a valid argument:Plenty of articles exist that probably should not. Equally, a lot of articles do not exist that probably should. Therefore, just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist; it is quite possible that the other article should also be deleted but nobody has noticed it.


 * My point is that the content (from sources independent of the subject) is easily merged into a sentence or two on the filmaker's page. Woody Allen's own production company doesn't have its own page (another OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument I know, but what could such an article say? That it is the name under which Allen produces his film?), nor any mention except on individual films. Malagurski cinema is the name under which BM makes and distributes (most of) his films, that is worthy of a mention, but IMO not an article as it is fated to forever be a stub.Pincrete (talk) 11:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC) ps quite a number of your above examples seem EVEN MORE candidates for deletion than this one!

I oppose deletion, if the films are relevant enough to have articles on Wikipedia, so is the production company that produced them. As for the sources, I added a few, there are plenty more on the net, but this is enough for such a short article, I'm sure more will be added as the article expands. --UrbanVillager (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * No one doubts that Malagurski Cinema is the 'banner' under which BM's films are (mostly) developed, funded and distributed. Therefore I do not doubt that sources exist which mention the prod company name when discussing/ promoting/ screening these films (that is the kind of 'mention' which you added, as part of a screening 'ad', it does not in any sense 'discuss' or give info about Malagurski Cinema).


 * What is in doubt is whether RS (independent of the subject) give significant coverage of the company as a subject in its own right (ie ouside of discussion of BM's films or BM himself). The article is therefore a contentfork, since any independently sourced info would be better merged into an existing article IMO.Pincrete (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is a good enough argument for Wikipedia. I mean, look at Dog Eat Dog Films, it's Michael Moore's production company, all the films produced by that company are made by Moore, but I don't see anybody disputing whether the company should have an article on Wikipedia. Yes, I know, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but if the page is properly sourced, I see no need to further discuss this matter. If the owner is relevant, the films are relevant, then the production company is relevant. It's not like somebody is creating an article for Malagurski's secretary or driver or something that kinda maybe has something to do with his work, this is the company that appears at the beginning of every single one of his films and it is the company that produced those films. --UrbanVillager (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:ORG is clear 'A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject'.


 * The notability of the films is not relevant per WP:INHERITORG, notability is not inherited. Nor is Moore's film company per WP:ORGSIG 'it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists'.


 * Mere mentions in ads and 'screening info' (which is what we are being offered at present, and which I don't doubt there are others) falls foul of WP:ORGDEPTH, since these are clearly simple repeats of the info passed on from the film distributors. We don't create pages just because something exists and the info been repeated in ads. I propose that the 'factual' info (that these films are produced under the banner 'M Cin', his own prod company), be merged into the BM page. Pincrete (talk) 08:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)