Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jarowskij


 * 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. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  03:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Jarowskij

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Does not seem to pass WP:COMPANY and is not cited to any reliable sources. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Jarowskij is really known in sweden almost shown everyday in the ending credits of television shows.In my opinion this article only needs some sourcing, not deletion and in my opinion it does pass WP:COMPANY.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete certainly gets passing mentions in gnews to prove its existence. but as per WP:CORPDEPTH I don't see indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 08:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete If this article gets more sources and enough coverage, i have no problem with it remaining but as for how it is now, i would suggest a weak delete. I do not want to rush things. Jivesh    &bull;  Talk2Me  16:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete does not pass notability criteria (WP:COMPANY). A quick search on Google does not give any good, reliable sources. Novice7 (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That this company has "produced many of Sweden's most popular soap operas, reality, and other TV series" over the last several years appears to be absolutely correct. Unsurprisingly, it is possible to find quite a few sources for this company (,, , , , , just for a start), but I'll leave it to someone else to research and write the article. I don't find the subject particularly interesting. (For the record, in case it does get deleted and someone looks at this discussion afterwards, it is my belief that it wouldn't be any more difficult to start from scratch than to start from the current content.) --Hegvald (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Hegvald's sources 2, 3 and 5 in particular do show notability; according to this source the company has won awards for some of their shows. I've never heard of them nor am I familiar with any of the shows they have produced, and am not sufficiently interested to read up on them in order to expand the article. Unfortunately, there don't seem to be a lot of sources in English, so some rudimentary Swedish knowledge is probably necessary to work on it. --bonadea contributions talk 07:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Swedish-language sources are okay. But we'd have to improve with them and not just find them, I think. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I think, too, and I'd be reluctant to !vote either way unless some solid information referenced by solid sources - in any language - is in fact added to the article. As Hegvald says, if the article is deleted it would be easy to write a better one from scratch. --bonadea contributions talk 06:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep There do appear to be sources, and I am prepared to defer to the Swedish Wikipedia--even though their article is not sourced--I assume if the company were not important there it would have been challenged.    DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 29 May 2011 (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.