Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A24 (company)


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 22:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

A24 (company)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete References are not intellectually independent and/or relating to their productions and not to the company itself. Notability is not inherited. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing ++ 18:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Are you sure the refs aren't independent? Variety? The Hollywood Reporter? The LA Times? etc, etc.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  21:44, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  21:44, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Snow keep: An article about one of the most prolific distributors and productions studios that has won a number of Oscars, backed by verifiable resources, is up for deletion... Let that sink in. D ARTH B OTTO talk • cont 07:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep And I disagree with the nominator's claim. Pretty much all references 1-14 are from independent sources and are about the company itself (its ethos, its plans, its management) rather than the films it produces. Smurrayinchester 08:07, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Snow keep. A highly prominent film company, heavily covered in reliable sources. First page of a basic Google search includes "How A24 is Disrupting Hollywood" (GQ); "Is A24, the Indie Upstart with a Fresh Best-Picture Win, the Next Miramax?" (Vanity Fair); "Get to Know A24, the Film Company Behind Spring Breakers and Moonlight" (The Wall Street Journal). --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Obvious Keep as a highly notable company. There is an overwhelming amount of coverage about it., how can you defend this? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I can see by a number of questions posted that there is some confusion over why this article was nominated. There shouldn't be. If it is a notable topic (and in truth I'm starting to see that it must be) then I'm delighted to be able to point out the crap referencing so that the article can be made even better. In response to, just to be clear - while the sources may be independent (in that they are not linked with the company they're discussing), the reference must also be *intellectually* independent. That is, it must not rely extensively on company-produced material or announcements - which includes interviews and quotations (and there's always exceptions). These sources are considered PRIMARY sources. There is a lot of confusion (and I see it all the time at AfD) in relation to an "independent source" and an "intellectually independent reference" that meets the criteria for establishing notability. has posted an opinion which doesn't really help any position in this AfD.  says "pretty much all references 1-14 are from independent sources" but seems confused over the difference between an independent source and an intellectually independent reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability. Without exception, all of the references 1-14 are either company announcements, business-as-usual announcements such as hiring/firing, articles discussing their marketing campaigns but nothing in-depth in relation to the company itself (the subject of this article), articles based on interviews and articles in relation to movie rights. Not to mention that the remaining references 15-63 are referencing the movies.  lists the fastcompany reference and this is good and meets the criteria - it is intellectually independent and in-depth. But both the GQ reference and the latimes article rely on interviews with Sofia Coppola (a business partner) and/or "the company's friends, collaborators and employees" and/or Katz and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND as they are not independent from the topic, not intellectually independent, and in some case PRIMARY sources. The WSJ article is behind a firewall and I am unable to verify if it meets the criteria for establishing notability, but if someone else comes along and can verify it, I'm happy to withdraw the nomination.  -- HighKing ++ 18:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If you're wanting reference cleanup, that's one thing. But, flippantly nominating pages for deletion without having knowledge about the notability is not only disruptive, but wastes everyone's time. It's your responsibility to have a grasp on the notability of a subject, whether it's this one or the dozens of other pages you've nominated over the past 24 hours. D ARTH B OTTO talk • cont 19:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * My comment that the article has "crap referencing" is still true. Doesn't mean that I'm looking for article cleanup - that's your incorrect assumption. That's twice now you've shown an inability to address what I've actually written. Try posting something constructive. Perhaps find a reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability? Just a suggestion....  -- HighKing ++ 21:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * DarthBotto is right. You need to exercise due diligence per WP:BEFORE before nominating. You're the odd editor out because everyone else knows that A24 is notable. The fact that multiple independent sources across the board even mention A24 is a big green flag to dig deeper and find out which ones have more details about the company. Like WP:GNG says, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." But if you're dismissing something like the Los Angeles Times article as not sufficient for notability, then I don't know what to tell you. A good way to find sources is to do a domain search, e.g. a24 site:economist.com. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 00:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * My own searching only found articles that fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. You might accuse me of applying a strict definition on sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability, fair enough, but ad hominen passive aggressive arguments such as WP:BEFORE or condescendingly pointing out how to perform a site search on Google are counter-productive. To date, I've provided cogent explanations on all the sources provided. You are entitled to disagree on the LA Times article if you have a different interpretation or application of policy/guidelines but for me and my interpretation, that article clearly fails since it relies exclusively on sources connected with the company. If you want to slam dunk this AfD, simply produce one more reference rather than bashing the nominator. Or not .. whatever amuses you. I'll continue to monitor this AfD to see if another source is produced. Until that time, I haven't had my WP:HEY moment and all I can see are publicity-generating advertorial references that continue to use PRIMARY sources, etc. -- HighKing ++ 13:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep A24 should be kept because it did win several awards including Oscars. It won Best Actress for Brie Larson for Room, Best Visual Effects for Ex Machina, and Best Picture, Best Supporting Actor (Mahershala Ali), and Best Adapted Screenplay for Moonlight. Evil Idiot  11:01, 28 October 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.