Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Back to Front TV


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 05:27, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Back to Front TV

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Non-notable TV production company. There were a couple of media mentions in 2013, but I couldn't find any evidence that it actually ever produced anything. Pepper Beast   (talk)  06:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: I didn't find an article on a TV series with this name. Any other Redirect suggestions? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom.   Pepper Beast    (talk)  06:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTPROMO. As written, this is promotional and fixing it would reduce it to a microstub. I agree with the PROD removal comment that the digital trends source may be usable in some context, but probably not as a SIRS source for a production company -- more likely as a source for the Back to Front show, if it ever got made, which I am not really sure of. &mdash;siro&chi;o 06:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  00:34, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment I'd perhaps redirect to the TV show of the same name, it has some coverage. Nothing found for the company alone. Oaktree b (talk) 14:02, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any sources that meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability.  HighKing++ 18:46, 11 September 2023 (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.