Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Hangar Studios


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:36, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Black Hangar Studios

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

Created and edited exclusively by SPAs, doesn't cite a single source, and no evidence of notability on Google. A recent edit by an IP attempted to rewrite the entire article into a brochure page. BrigadierG (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies,  and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, inclined to agree here that as a studio, I am not seeing much (hardly anything) in way of WP:SIGCOV and really not close to asserting notability. It's all well and good that some seemingly notable productions are associated with it, though notability is not inherited. Bungle (talk • contribs) 17:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello BrigadierG, we apologise for adding too much 'brochure style information'. We wanted to add some more information on the studio itself as well as update the various new productions, including ones from the BBC, Netflix, Marvel etc. We can cite these to the imdb pages, which has our company attached. Please advise on what information we can and cannot share. JamesNash98 (talk) 07:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I think responding in the collective first person is a pretty damning case of WP:NOTHERE, where "we" implies some kind of collective business interest rather than encyclopaedic interest. Wikipedia is not a place for your business to promote itself, per WP:PROMOTION. This response is also a tacit admission to an undisclosed WP:PAID violation. Aside from these behavioural problems, there's one way and one way only to make this article appropriate for Wikipedia - make it pass WP:GNG by backing it up with multiple, independent, reliable sources that significantly discuss the subject. WP:IMDB is not a reliable source for production credits, and production credits in general do not establish notability on their own. In terms of what you can and cannot include, I suggest reading WP:NOT and WP:COI. BrigadierG (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Draftify / weak delete - the "UK's largest permanent green screen" is a robust claim of significance and I'm a little surprised there isn't more coverage. As it stands, I could only find one example of third party SIGCOV and even then it reeks of being a rehashed press release, so is a bit dubious: . I strongly suspect this subject will achieve notability in the near future as it currently isn't very far off, but for now I agree it doesn't belong in mainspace. WaggersTALK  11:18, 20 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.