Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eon Films India


 * 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, will be userfied if requested--Ymblanter (talk) 06:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Eon Films India

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

advertising, overstating importance The Banner talk 23:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  23:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  23:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:INDAFD: Eon Films Mohan Das Amrita DuttaMahua Mazumdar
 * WP:INDAFD: Eon Films Mohan Das Amrita DuttaMahua Mazumdar


 * Delete for failing WP:COMPANY. The company exists and they've produced and distributed a few films, but those film's notability while verifable is not inherited, and in their own lacking of in-depth coverage in reliable sources the company does not meet notability standards. Perfectly fine if this new article be returned to its author for a complete rework after he's been sent to WP:MOS and WP:RS, studies WP:CORP, and shows understanding of WP:ADVERT and WP:PEACOCK.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 06:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I could certainly agree with a "move back to user space"-proposal. The Banner talk 14:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:COMPANY and is promo. Maybe even speedy delete db-promo. --Jersey92 (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well Jersey92, a speedy is a bit harsh, specially as tone could otherwise be addressed through editing... and many of the contributions from India suffer from the same flowery use of language as do their news articles. The issue is really as simple as not (yet) meeting WP:CORP, and if or when notability can be established a return of a properly sourced and neutrally worded article should not have the extra burden of being itself speedied as a recreation of something that had been speedied.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 18:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * MichaelQSchmidt That's why I stuck with "maybe"... either way it fails WP:GNG and should be deleted --Jersey92 (talk) 04:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe it should go for now as well, but a far better version could one day return.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 06:10, 12 October 2014 (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.