Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/01 Distribution


 * 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 redirect to RAI.  Sandstein  10:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

01 Distribution

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete There's only one source for 01 Distribution. I don't think that this source is a reliable source. There are no indications of notability, and it fails GNG and WP:NCORP. Evil Idiot 23:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2017 November 14.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 23:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: There isn't much in the way to lend to the subject matter's notability. Even the films it has distributed are generally non-notable-- and the notable ones, such as Need for Speed, have minimal involvement. D ARTH B OTTO talk • cont 00:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: it indeed distributed a lot of movies (see the list I added to the article cutting and pasting form the italian version), some of them well-known.--Pampuco (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to allow consideration of 's redirect suggestion.
 * Delete non notable company that no reliable sources reported about thus fails WP:GNG and no independent sources coverage to even meet WP:CORPDEPTH. The fact they distribute a lot of movies cannot make them notable without reliable  3rd party sources and if the films they distribute are notable, the notability is for the film and its producers not the distributors. &thinsp;&mdash; Ammarpad (talk) 05:52, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to new section in RAI article (like RAI), and add history of formation there. I didn't find very much other independent content about this company, beyond what's in the article, besides this []. Certainly nothing to substantiate such a long unsourced list of titles. The Italian wiki version is similarly unsourced. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  18:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to new section in RAI article, per TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  18:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC) seems best to me.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect Redirect and turn into a section on RAI.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.