Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BraxtanFILM (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 delete. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 10:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

BraxtanFILM (2nd Nomination)

 * — (View AfD)

Delete as non-notable. Still no real assertion of notability for this small film production company - i.e. no published works other than a standard IMDB listing and one website mention. StoptheDatabaseState 01:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I quote the "independent" website: Braxtan Film started in 1989 when Hank Braxtan began making short films with a home video camera and some action figures. In 1994, Braxtan began making films for high school under the name No Budget Productions. This lasted until 2003, when while spoofing Star Wars, he called it BraxtanFILM as a joke, but the name stuck. Action figures? Spoofing Star Wars? Notable! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 01:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - no serious sources have been produced despite several opportunities. If the company's films were reviewed in significant publications then fine but at the moment there is a terminal failure to meet WP:V. TerriersFan 02:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. MER-C 03:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete this self-promotion. Edeans 03:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Complete lack of non-trivial coverage by reliable, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 04:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unverfied, nn notable.--John Lake 06:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and it still looks like a speedy candidate. Doesn't even assert notability. Perel 07:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - Speedy: Issues raised in the first deletion Nomination were not addressed and the keep consensus appeared to be conditioned on addressing the issues. Delete:There are no reliable sources giving any information about the topic. -- Jreferee 17:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per non-notability.  (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete No notability whatsoever.  S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  06:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, no indication from WP:RS that this "company" and its films are notable. -- Kinu t /c  06:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I made up this subpage up just now. It sources everything in there, including the film awards. User:Fresheneesz/BraxtanFILM. Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated. I really think this company is good to keep - and will probably make some "real" news sometime in the next few years. Fresheneesz 21:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I doubt it. Also, the important parts are not sourced: They have won multiple awards for Indie Film Adventures, Freddy VS Ghostbusters, and Paramount pictures bought the rights to BraxtanFILM's Friday the 13th AGAIN!. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 21:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Gah, I must have deleted my work - I sourced some of the awards and removed the rest.. I'll do it again. Fresheneesz 05:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, added the sources back in. Fresheneesz 05:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete close. Just H 04:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep due to my recent sourcing of the awards and NPOV reworking. Fresheneesz 10:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Almost all of the inline cited sources should be removed from the article for failing to meet the requirements of WP:Verifiability. The sites fanboytheatre.com and theforce.net are blogs or fansites that do not independently verify posted submissions. The postings at b-independent.com, protoncharging.com, and myfilm.com are also not verified by the posting site, and were submitted by the company itself (one is a classified ad). I will leave them in the article for now so that others may evaluate them. -- Satori Son 14:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to say, the sources are awful, and sources even *that* good were difficult to find. Not to say that any of the information in the article is false. I suppose the issue here is whether the article asserts verifiable importance. Do the sources on the awards check out - cause those are the assertion of importance. Fresheneesz 20:48, 20 December 2006 (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.