Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Sky Motion Pictures (2nd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 09:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Big Sky Motion Pictures
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This apparently defunct production company has meager credits. One film hasn't been shown, another (albeit with big name stars) was released in a whopping 42 theaters, and the other two in the filmography aren't credited to it in their articles or on IMDb. About the only thing marginally notable about it are its legal problems, which could be mentioned in Mars Callahan's article. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS  (talk) 14:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GSS  (talk) 14:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep per meeting WP:CORP, defunct now or not and per the same decisions and comments of the last AFD. IE: The company and its productions are spoken of in multiple reliable sources: The Advocate, New Orleans CityBusiness, Sun Herald, Decatur Daily, The Times Picayune, Delta Groove, Worst Previews, Louisiana Film and Television, Eclecto Groove, Reality Wanted, New York Times, and more...,, and    Multiple articles speaking toward the company and some about it infusing Louisiana with money as it decided to film there give us specific references to the company, as the film was (at the time) only in pre-production. No company, no film project. No film project, no write-ups.  And as with similar articles, it is expected that sources would write about the productions of a production company.  Per guideline: "'A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability."  My embolding as WP:SUBSTANTIAL is not a mandate (intentional redlink to underscore that it is not a guide).  Yes, being big and prolific and rich can help with press and notability, and while even this was never a big rich production company like Pixar or Disney or DreamWorks or Sony or Warner Bros. or MGM, and even if it may be seen as "weak" by some, notability is not temporary and this one makes it, even if only "just".  And too, this is not being a case of WP:INHERITED, as just as with actors or musicians or artists or politicians or scholars or athletes, a film production company's notability is found through the products they create... what they do or have done IS the claim to notability.   Wikipedia is not about only the biggest and the best or most popular. It's about topics which meet our inclusion standards.  Legal issues and the company closing down should be added to inform our readers of its history, and it's dissolving is a reason to ensure we get archived news links, but not a reason for the topic of a now-closed company to be deleted. And oh....the "unreliable" and incomplete IMDB's omission errors are not ours.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 18:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - Fails WP:CORPDEPTH/WP:GNG. Making some movies that are themselves marginally notable (or even fully notable) does not a notable company make. Unless, of course, there's significant coverage of the company, too. The above links, along with my own search, are press releases, brief mentions, unreliable sources, and a couple local business announcements (i.e. the kind that a local paper would report if a company were moving to their town). Those sorts of local papers count, but they're not remotely enough. What far and away the most coverage is about is the company's -- or more specifically, people associated with the company -- legal troubles. This raises some BLPCRIME concerns, but ultimately the coverage isn't very substantial anyway. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 14:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Very little coverage of this organization. Articles about the films make passing mention of the organization.  Some lengthy items regarding legal issues which don't add to notability per WP:ILLCON Gab4gab (talk)


 * 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.