Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Company Pictures


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 00:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Company Pictures

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Although a number of their productions are considerably notable, I'm not sure if this automatically confers notability upon associated people and organisations. I could not find any substantial coverage upon a cursory search, however even if I did I don't think I am best placed to judge notability on a media company (e.g. which industry publications are well respected) unless they were obvious mainstream press sources (of which I couldn't find any and expect that none exist). Would like those with a better understanding of the link between having notable output and being inherently notable to pass judgement on whether this article should remain. Should be noted that the article lacks info other than a list and is completely unreferenced, so if WP:RS are found, they should be used to expand the article (which I am happy to do if some emerge in the process of this discussion). Rayman60 (talk) 01:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as it stands per Rayman60's reasoning. We shouldn't hold any prejudice against recreating the article if good sources can be found, if only because the subject has got a particularly search engine-proof name, which might be blinding us to the existence of good sources. If kept, article should be pared back to a stub until sources are located for the current content.  A  Train talk 16:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC) (see below -- A  Train talk 21:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC))
 * Keep (changed position) -- article is in much better shape after Andreas Philopater's rehabilitation of it. I would suggest it passes WP:ORG now.  A  Train talk 21:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete as per above Light2021 (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic   Nightfury  07:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I have expanded and sourced the article to address concerns. Any thoughts? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 19:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - per expansion. BabbaQ (talk) 18:09, 1 November 2016 (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.