Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benetone Hillin Entertainment


 * 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. Davewild (talk) 12:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Benetone Hillin Entertainment

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A one line mention in Variety seems to fall far short of the GNG. Ridernyc (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 00:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 00:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 00:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Brief mentions, blurbs, and primary sources (credits, etc.) per nom. CorporateM (Talk) 02:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems 's WP:BEFORE might be a just little weak. I quickly found a substantive article directly about this company in Variety and another in Pasadena Independent. WP:SIGCOV is met. What searches did you yourself perform?  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 13:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Article needs expanded or some minor improvements made, not deletion. Benetone Hillin Entertainment is definitely a rising multimillion dollar business within the entertainment field. The articles written about the company's growth and movies from several different references on the page have stable enough information to establish a valid argument to keep the article.--Drtuoy (talk) 01:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC) — Drtuoy (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 *  Keep per meeting WP:CORP. The Variety article I found sealed this "keep" for me.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 13:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I disagree the Variety online article is not substantive. Variety online seems to reproduce tons of studio press releases in a rush for online content.  Even then one article is not enough to meet the GNG in my eyes.  Ridernyc (talk) 09:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * also want to add this article is one of about half dozen I have found that are all related to one and all created and maintained by long procession of SPA accounts. You can see where one of these accounts was created and showed up here in this debate. Ridernyc (talk)


 * HUH ? You are somehow claiming a 375 word article dealing directly and in detail with this company is somehow not significant coverage? It is to be remembered that "substantive" is NOT a SIGCOV criteria... but more-than-trivial IS. Or is it that you're claiming the in-depth authored article by the Variety Asia Bureau Chief Patrick Frater (someone qualified and expected to write about Thailand company merger with one from the US) is a press release?  And the 686 word in-depth authored article in Pasadena Independent is also NOT a press release. Agree or not... notability is met. It's fine that you may be tracking down SPA's and deleting their articles, but you need to be a bit more understanding of WP:N and WP:GNG. I think WP:RSN will approve the sources and WP:DRV will result in an quick overturn if deleted. Thank you.    Schmidt,  Michael Q. 10:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes there are very good at getting their press release into online blog sections of notable publications. As you can see they are a PR nightmare launching an astroturfing campaign here. Ridernyc (talk) 23:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Issues with other crappy articles notwithstanding, I do not believe that Variety's Asia Bureau Chief (not a minion, BUT a Bureau Chief) is using his position of authority, experience, or expertise to reprint some press release, and no... the authored articles are not in blog sections... and even if they were, we'd look to WP:NEWSBLOG. WP:CORP is met.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 00:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 *  Keep They're plenty of valid references confirming the notability of this company. I feel the general guide lines have been met.--Scantunl (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC) — Scantunl (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note This account was created a year ago and its first and only action was to remove a prod template that had been placed on an article that was created by yet another SPA account. This account did not make one single edit for a year after that until it showed up here.  We clearly have massive long term meat puppetry here. Ridernyc (talk) 09:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow... four lifetime edits ever. Take him to WP:SPI right away.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 00:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * ATTENTION NEW EDITORS: Please... you may comment, but if you have no history of ever editing Wikipedia, piling on with "keeps" will not be helpful and could have regular editors suspecting WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT... and THAT alone could get this deleted.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 22:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep – Meets WP:GNG, albeit weakly as per what appears to be only two available online sources providing significant coverage:, . North America1000 18:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 20:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Keep based on added content and cites. / Publications like Variety and Screen Daily report industry news, like who gets a contract and what companies are merging with other companies. In non-entertainment areas these articles are not seen as contributing to notability, but are just the regular announcements of doing business WP:CORP. I do not see any articles that would bring this company up to notabiltiy -- also, no award-winning films, and much of what is listed here as product is in the future. This may be WP:TOOSOON for this company. LaMona (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Woah... sorry, but your argument is not based upon our guides and policies. WP:GNG is WP:GNG and Wikipedia fully expects and accepts that Variety and Screen Daily will report on the film industry. Further, we do not judge a production company by it having "award winning films" or not... that would be WP:INHERITED. We expect coverage in and by and for those sources which cover the industry in which they work.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 01:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Schmidt,, I don't see how having your product win awards is WP:INHERITED. If an author's book wins a Pulitzer, that author is going to be notable. But are you saying that the company in question is not responsible for the quality of the films? And, yes, you expect coverage, but that coverage has to say something beyond "this company exists." I note that you have added more cites to the article, so it's looking better. However, #6 is a blog, and looks to be a fan site. (It doesn't give credentials so it's hard to know.) I'll change to keep based on the newly added links. LaMona (talk) 15:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You questioned the widely accepted WP:RS Variety and Screen Daily for reporting on just what they are expected to cover, and I responded. And while I understand what you are saying, an author's winning a Pulitzer is not a notability for the book's publisher. Thanks though.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 19:06, 8 May 2015 (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.