Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aviron Pictures


 * 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 delete. The one "keep" is clearly unpersuasive.  Sandstein  09:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Aviron Pictures

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails GNG. The company was established in 2016, and thus far the coverage is limited to routine press in film trades. JSFarman (talk) 01:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing ++ 18:04, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Articles about Avirion Pictures are found on PR Newswire page. They can help because they are reliable sources. Evil Idiot (talk) 10:54, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Except articles on "PR Newswire" are ... PR, articles authored and released by the company, and therefore those articles fail the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:ORGIND. No arguments were made about "reliable sources". A reliable source could print a company announcement or press release verbatim and it would fail as a PRIMARY source and fails WP:ORGIND since the resulting "article" would not be intellectually independent, even though it was published in a reliable source. -- HighKing ++ 15:51, 2 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.