Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Collective Frames


 * 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. ✗ plicit  00:16, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Collective Frames

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Promotional article by blocked sockpuppet. BOVINEBOY 2008 18:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is my first AfD discussion and I found it through the recent changes tool. I needed to do some research as to what AfD is and what is a "sockpuppet" - and I vote to delete the article because, since it's promotional, it's not supposed to be on Wikipedia (from what I've seen). I'm still a bit confused about the sockpuppet concept but I did also see it's against the policy, so I guess it counts. Aequilaterum (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet of . ✗ plicit  00:16, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note The above editor has (ironically?) since been blocked as a sockpuppet.  HighKing++ 15:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:33, 2 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - Article appears to meet WP:GNG and is sufficiently cited using at least 3 independent, reliable sources including The New Indian Express, The Hindu, and The Times of India. There are some issues with the article, but any promotional references could be reworded. Dragonsnowballcat (talk) 22:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 *  Weak keep  - I did some work with the article, mainly reference fixing. However, a lot of sources seem to be notable, and the company has been involved in many notable films. The problem is that most sources direct to the films and not the company, and the article seems very messy. Thanks - RandomEditorAAA (talk) 03:28, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Hi, you say above that "most sources direct to the films and not the company" - NCORP requires references that discuss the company. Can you take another look and perhaps revise your !vote?  HighKing++ 15:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Upon further thinking, I agree that the article should be deleted as it fails NCORP. Thanks - RandomEditorAAA (talk) 01:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment This article recently got proposed for deletion by, but the tag was removed after heavy cleanup by . I pinged them as they might be important for discussion here. Thanks - RandomEditorAAA (talk) 03:28, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Since this article is about a company/organization, the appropriate Guideline is WP:NCORP. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company*. *None* of the articles (least of all the ones mentioned above by ) provide in-depth information on the company - some don't even mention the company. Most are reviews or comments on the movies (in which case, perhaps the movies are notable enough for an article). Topic company fails WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 15:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails NCORP. Agree w the nom. Kolma8 (talk) 23:25, 4 October 2021 (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.