Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bold Films


 * 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. (WP:NPASR). North America1000 04:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Bold Films

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 10:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Yes, the nominated version lacks sources... so what? THAT otherwise addressable issue is not a valid deletion rationale.
 * Per WP:BEFORE:
 * C.E.O.:
 * Pres:
 * C.F.O.:
 * Complete name:
 * Many more-than-trivial results found with a diligent search... WP:NRVE... and we also have the company and it's work spoken of in sources expected to cover they and their work in that manner... Variety. Rolling Stone, Hollywood Reporter 1, Hollywood Reporter 2, Hollywood Reporter 3, About Entertainment, The New York Sun, San Francisco Chronicle, Denver Post. Does having one and one's works so covered meet WP:GNG and thus WP:CORP ?  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 01:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - In my opinion there should be independent, non-trivial secondary sources about Bold Films as a company per WP:CORPDEPTH, not about the movies they work on. JMHamo (talk) 10:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well... not neccessarily. CORPDEATH explains "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[1] independent sources should be cited to establish notability." For instance and now sourcing the article, Variety offers more-than-trivial information even if also discussing some films and Cannes. A topic being sourced does not have to be the sole topic discussed in a source.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 00:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Neutral. Could be "here today, gone tomorrow." Maybe we should wait a while before we have an article. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:18, 5 May 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) 02:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep- My vote will be in favor, althought sources about their company are not reliable however for their work there are several. I couldn't vote for delete to this page, my final words will be keep.Amitbanerji26 (talk) 16:28, 18 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.