Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cinema Centric


 * 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! 03:12, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Cinema Centric

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

Non-notable productions and awards. Little to no third party coverage for "Cinema Centric" or "Clean, Shiny, and New Productions". Fails WP:NCORP. KH-1 (talk) 02:53, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Companies. KH-1 (talk) 02:53, 7 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. I could find zero significant independent coverage not only on the production company itself, but on their films as well.4meter4 (talk) 03:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Added third part website write ups as well as referenced quote from film director James Merendino Lighthouse337 (talk) 03:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No you didn't. You added facebook and imdb as sources which are not considered reliable sources per our policy at Reliable sources/Perennial sources. We need reliable sources as described at WP:Verifiability. Something like a review in Variety or an article in The New York Times or in a cinema journal. Not self published websites that anyone can edit like facebook and imdb. Further an interview with the director would not count as a reliable source for notability purposes because it is too closely connected to the subject of the article. (read WP:SIGCOV) We need sources that are entirely independent from Cinema Centric and the people associated with them. 4meter4 (talk) 03:42, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Also note: Think Shorts is a submission based review site. Under its FAQ it says: "Unlike other curated short film platforms, we never reject short films. All films submitted to Think Shorts are guaranteed to be showcased on our website.".-KH-1 (talk) 03:48, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "No you didn't."?
 * The "third party website write ups" I was referring are on ThinkShorts.com. I'm not trying to upset anyone, I will keep adding information to the page as I find it on the internet, but if it's not meeting requirements, then please delete the page and I'll move onto a different project. Respectfully, thank you for your time. Lighthouse337 (talk) 03:50, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Got you. Given the low bar for submissions for ThinkShorts.com, I don't think we would consider this significant coverage under wikipedia's policies for notability. We need sources which have a higher standard of editorial oversight than what is provided by ThinkShorts.com. Best.4meter4 (talk) 03:56, 7 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 07:35, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. 13 of the 14 footnotes come from primary sources (IMDb, the company's own self-published social networking presence) that are not support for notability at all, and the only one that comes from a third party is not from an outlet that's genuinely reliable enough to secure passage of WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH all by itself — if there was a solid mix of good sources otherwise, then it wouldn't be a problem, but it can't clinch notability all by itself if the other sourcing is all junk. As usual, the rule here is not "every company is entitled to have an article as long as it's possible to verify that it exists" — we require external validation of the company's significance to be established by third party sources writing analytical content about the company and its products, and there isn't nearly enough of that being shown here. Bearcat (talk) 15:32, 9 October 2022 (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.