Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Film Academy


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 01:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Film Academy
Prod removed without explanation by User:Film Academy so there's potential WP:VAIN issues. As noted in the proposal, "non-notable company. Film Academy itself useless on google but East End Film Society and combined search are terrible." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Film school --Aoratos 09:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC) Just delete it --Aoratos 21:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: That would be an incorrect action. Film Academy is the name of the company.  It is not simply a film school. --HResearcher 10:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Film school. —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-26 11:36Z 
 * Comment: That would be an incorrect action. Film Academy is the name of the company.  It is not simply a film school. --HResearcher 10:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Replied below. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-06 17:19Z 


 * Deletee without redirect. Film academy might warrant redirection, but Film Academy does not. --Karnesky 22:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair point. --Aoratos 09:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * True, but no one has even discussed any notibility of Film Academy. Is it a notable film company or not? --HResearcher 10:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 *  AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 15:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This isn't worth a continuing debate. There is a consensus that the content is crap - delete it. If someone wants to redirect, they can and we can go from there. But I suspect, no-one much will care either way. Admin, Be BOld. --Aoratos 16:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, discussion hasn't looked at the notibility of this independent film company. --HResearcher 10:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per Karnesky as a non-notable company. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 06:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Take a look at the article. Film Academy is the name of a company, not merealy a film acadamy but THE Film Academy'.  Votes for delete based on the name are incorrect.  What should be looked is the notibility of the independent film company. --HResearcher 09:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak keep is it a notable film company? --HResearcher 09:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Looking at an older version of this page, prior to User:Film Academy removing information, they describe themselves as "founders of the East End Film Society" which as I point out in the nomination has a terrible google presense both by itself and combined with Film Academy. Also, there was also a one-sentence separate article at MySpace Film here about some project set up on MySpace which I simply made into a redirect back here.  There's no google information on this project and looking at the myspace page, nothing has been created yet.  There are concerns about verfiability and an article about a production company with a single project that has yet to produce a single film fails because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.  Their blog is about the film industry in general; there's no mention of anything in particular that they have done.  Their website lists nothing they've done.  Overall, is there any indication of notability anywhere that is worth debating?  How this is still being debated is beyond me at this point. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Then they are hardly notable at all. I changed my vote to delete.↓ Thanks for the clarification Ricky. --HResearcher 15:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. I can see the confusion, and worried like hell that somehow this was going to be kept. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete not notable. Do not redirect. --HResearcher 15:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * An redirect can be from a marginally related title or from something that is an instance of the more general. Redirects are cheap and save the content in the history---useful in case the subject ever becomes notable and also help prevent recreation if it hasn't yet become notable.  In fact for something uncontroversial, a speedy redirect without an AFD can save everyone a lot of time.  Deleting history is really only necessary for copyvio, attack pages, completely useless patent nonsense, etc. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-06 17:19Z 


 * 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.