Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hombale 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 keep.  Sandstein  14:43, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Hombale Films

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No in-depth sources passing WP:NCORP. Apart from this which itself reads like an interview, others are all film announcements. My attempts to listify were reverted twice. Bringing here to decide what the article should be. This version from before my listification had more sources than the current one, but none significant. Hemantha (talk) 04:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hemantha (talk) 04:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hemantha (talk) 04:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: I found that this page is perfect, there is no point for deletion of this page because I found the official website of the page Hombale films and its youtube page with 2.5 Million Subscribers and found the production house had won Two Indian National Awards I think that's enough for this page to cancel deletion. Harshel Quill (talk) 22:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep After did a quick research on Google found many reliable references that justify subject's notability. And this article is surviving on Wikipedia for more than two years. It passes WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 13:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Please do add those to the article or at least link them here so that interested parties can do it. Also isn't NCORP the applicable notability guideline here? My understanding is GNG is not sufficient. Hemantha (talk) 13:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Mentions-in-passing are not "in-depth". None of the references in the article meet the criteria, we require references that discuss the topic company and I can't find any, topic fails WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 12:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep indepth coverage here and here which include independent analysis (the second combines analysis and an interview which is permissable for corpdepth) so deletion is unnecessary in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 01:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Even after discounting the blatant promotion in the newskarnataka article - about an upcoming movie, it said The film is expected to shatter all records at the box office. It is also expected to do roaring business in other parts of India, it covers only the films made by the company. On the company itself, it has nothing to say apart from 1) founded by realtor 2) makes big budget films.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 14:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Now this distinction - on the company vs on the films made by the company - might seem like frivolous argumentation, but if you start thinking about writing an article on the company, there are many basic WP:V issues.
 * The news articles say a single founder, but a primary source (company registration) says it is a partnership between two persons.
 * There isn't even an year for when the company started, let alone date, in secondary sources brought forward.
 * If even the company type, incorporation date and it's founders are unclear, I can hardly see how there can be a WP:V compliant article or how the sources put forth are in-depth (in NCORP sense). Hemantha (talk) 04:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment Just did a quick search on Google and found these: 1. Hindustan Times - Hindustan Times, a trusted and notable newspaper published in India passes WP:RS and GNG. 2. Deccanherald - Deccan Herald, a reliable and notable newspaper published in India, passes WP:RS and GNG. 3. Timesnownes - Times Now News, a reliable and trusted news paper published in India, passes WP:RS, GNG and independent of the subject. 4. News Karnataka, a notable news paper published from Karnataka, India, Passes WP:RS. 5. Deccan Herald - Deccan Herald, a reliable and notable newspaper published in India, passes WP:RS and GNG and independent of the subject. Thus passes WP:THREE. And there are many news about the topic you can find on Google. DMySon (talk) 08:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per above and search reveals many reliable sources which passes WP:GNG. JoyStick101 (talk) 05:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per DMySon's soures, particularly News Karnataka and Deccan Herald, which give significant coverage/author's original opinion on the production company as a whole. -- Ab207 (talk) 09:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note - DMySon has continued to evaluate based on GNG instead of NCORP, without saying why. The new sources brought are film announcements, with the brief mentions of Hombale not being enough for NCORP. None of my objections about the promotional NewsKarnataka source and the films-by-the-company focus (instead of the company focus) of the DecaanHerald article have been addressed. Hemantha (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * NCORP criteria is applied over-and-above GNG which is intended to exclude routine coverage which companies generally receive. The above sources are unique to this company, and not something which other studios routinely receive. Since this is a film production company, the company's failure or success would be judged vis-a-vis its films, so complete separation is unreasonable to expect. Also positive coverage does not necessarily mean promotional coverage, and it can be addressed per WP:BIASED and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:35, 12 March 2022 (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.