Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evergreen Entertainment Group


 * 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. Tan  &#124;   39  18:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Evergreen Entertainment Group

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Aside from the first article reading like an advertisement, I can't find any sources of its existence. A simple Google search for "Evergreen Entertainment" basically pulls up info for an unrelated movie theater company. In addition, the article claims Resonate: A Guitar Story as one of its releases, but I found only one Ghit for that name: Wikipedia itself. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 22:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Evergreen Entertainment is a registered, incorporated California LLC.


 * 2) The description of the company is no different in context than others in the industry, such as Image Entertainment.


 * 3) "Resonate" is being released on Monday July 13, 2009, with the media campaign for same starting next the same day, after which you will be able to find a considerable amount of press outside of Wiki pointing to the company and the documentary. Hawkmoon70 (talk) 02:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC) — User:Hawkmoon70 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * But where are the sources to back up any of these claims? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 23:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

California State would be the holder of the Certificate of Incorporation. Would the UPC-issuing company suffice for the third party requirements/verification for the DVD being released? Or would you like a letter from Evergreen Entertainment Group LLC? Additionally, the DVD has been registered with the Library of Congress in the U.S. and the National Library of Canada for copyright purposes. Hawkmoon70 (talk) 00:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC) — User:Hawkmoon70 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete: per WP:CRYSTAL and fails WP:RS. That the company might be incorporated is all very well and good, but incorporation satisfies no element of Wikipedia policy or guideline.  Nor does a letter from the company satisfy notability criteria. Despite Hawkmoon's assertions, the release of a documentary does not guarantee media buzz, and in any event, Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance.  When (and if) such independent media buzz which satisfies WP:RS exists, then articles may be appropriate.    RGTraynor  06:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

My understanding of the Wikipedia regulations is that the Notability Requirement is met by the stature of the performers in the film, not by the reception or media coverage of the film itself. That said, the film is notable in that it contains performances from, and interviews with, musicians representing over 125 combined years of performing experience in an established idiom, that in itself is the subject of serious cultural inquiry and scholarship.Hawkmoon70 (talk) 23:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised you reached that understanding, since the language of the criterion you cite is clear: "The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career." (emphasis mine) To address your second point, one of the key elements of notability is that, as WP:NRVE holds, "Notability applies to individual topics, not a topic's overarching classification or type. For instance, the notability of a parent topic (of a parent-child "tree") is not inherited by subordinate topics, nor is notability inherited "upwards", from a notable subordinate to its parent. If a topic is notable, there must be verifiable evidence that it independently satisfies the general notability guideline."  The notability of a subject does not confer prima facie notability on a film about that subject.  A film about a certain kind of music doesn't become notable just because it has performances from, and interviews with, musicians with 125 combined years of experience in it or, as to that, 1125 combined years.  This film, as does any other, must fulfill criteria set forth in WP:GNG and WP:NOTFILM.  If you have evidence that it does, feel free to present it.    RGTraynor  02:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete All - There is no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2009 (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.