Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Happy Pup Films


 * 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   redirect to Mark Noyce. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy Pup Films

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notability. Newly created article on film production company that does not appear to have actually released a single film yet. This is probably promotional editing : aticles on non-notable films and non-notable producer have recently been created.TheLongTone (talk) 14:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  15:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * weak keep The filmography is strange. It includes films like this On the Ropes (2011 film), which is a film by Mark Noyce. Now these two are real enough (notability isn't a question for this page), yet the film is credited to Mark Noyce alone, no production company named. Now if Happy Pup is a new creation, is this really a film they can take credit for?  Why is this 2011 film being re-stated on this page as 2015?  That looks like padding the Happy Pup catalogue with Noyce's back catalogue to bulk it out.
 * I'm happy, assuming that Noyce is notable and some AGF, to see Happy Pup as just about notable (more by inheritance than anything) and so I'm not looking to delete it. However it would be stronger, and maybe more justifiable, as a redirect to a section on a broader article at Mark Noyce. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, Wikipedia's notability guidelines specify that notability is NOT inheritable. A production company could have worked on a major motion picture and still be non-notable per general notability guidelines AND WP:ORG.  That might sound like rules lawyering, but it makes sense: A contractor that installed the toilets at a famous landmark wouldn't exactly have real world notability.  Neither would the failed startup of a famous politician.  The only way we can demonstrate notability (and the burden of proof is on those trying to do that) is with independent sources reporting on the subject.  Google tells me Happy Pup Films was founded in the summer of last year, and Google news brings zero relevant results: the company isn't even mentioned in passing by any news articles.  As far as I can tell, this should be a Delete, or a Merge as you suggested.  ZappyGun  (talk to me)  What I've done for Wikipedia   — Preceding undated comment added 23:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  20:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In any case I'm unconvinced that Noyes or On The Ropes are notable. The film relies on very flaky sources, and the sources for Noyes I've looked at are similarly thin. Local press is about as good as it gets: I'm thinking of nominating both for AfD.TheLongTone (talk) 14:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's certainly a viewpoint, but we should be careful not to equate niche cinema with Hollywood and think that because something didn't have the marketing spend of Shrek, it doesn't exist. The place to look would be in the MA press, not national or local general press. I asked a couple of MMA people what they thought of Mark Noyce. No-one knew who I meant. Then I mentioned the film titles and suddenly they were all raving about them (and now they knew who Noyce is, if not by name). Andy Dingley (talk) 15:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Redirect to Mark Noyce. There is no significant independent coverage about this production company that would make it notable for a stand-alone article but material for it is appropriate for Noyce article, and it is already there. -- Whpq (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 20:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Mark Noyce. There's not really anything strange here (this is Noyce's production studio). But it doesn't get any coverage separate from Noyce. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2015 (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.