Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dogwoof 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) Mkativerata (talk) 21:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Dogwoof Pictures

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

WP:NN company failing WP:CORP. While the company has distributed highly notable products, that doesn't make the company notable. If that were the case, every corner store that sold Coca-Cola would be notable. Toddst1 (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment An international film distributor is hardly a corner store. By that reasoning, Walmart, K-Mart, and Lowe's might also not then be notable because they also sell occasionally notable products, including Coca Cola. Is not notability to be determined by possible sources, rather than WP:NOTINHERITED?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The article states that they're not international - rather a UK-only distributor. Yes, WP:N relies on third party coverage of the company or awards directly to the company, not awards to the products they sell, etc.. Toddst1 (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, having read through sources in regards this company, it seems they've made a deal with CISCO and are expanding to take their product to the internet. So, while still based in the UK they will now be servicing a world-wide marketplace.  I can see that having only a UK branch, the company itself is not international, but simply services (or will service) internationally.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep   Their role as distributor seems to have been significant.  DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The sources show significant coverage of the company, itself. Emily Jensen (talk) 03:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Several sources are available that provide in-depth coverage of this company, so it has at least prima facie evidence of meeting WP:GNG. Additionally, we shouldn't give too much weight to WP:NOTINHERITED in an industry that exists for the purpose of distributing others' works. --Darkwind (talk) 08:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per having coverage that shows notability.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:52, 28 April 2010 (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.