Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juntobox 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. Certainly no consensus to delete. Any rewriting, cleanup, or merging can be discussed and carried out outside of AfD. Michig (talk) 07:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Juntobox films

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable film studio, already speedied several times. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG, and specifically states that it operates "micro-budget films", which reduce the chances of notability. The article is quite promotional. Suggest SALTing the title as well, as it's been recreated quite a lot. Luke no 94 (tell Luke off here) 13:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete I originally listed it as speedy A7, but another editor thought the connections with other artists sufficiently significant to need it to be brought here. I think they're mere unfulfilled plans, or dreams.  DGG ( talk ) 15:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Gets substantial writeups from a Forbes columnist in March 2012 ("How Forest Whitaker And Two Film Buffs Are Elevating Social Movies"), a March 2012 USA Today column ("Oscar-winner Whitaker and his new social-media gig"), and in a January 2013 Variety article about their sponsorship of "the largest p[r]ize in Slamdance history" ("Slamdance, JuntoBox partner for screenplay competition"), as well as a briefer mention in a March 2012 Los Angeles Times article ("Celebrities Lend Talent to Tech").  Not yet decided about whether a separate article is justified, but I do think there's enough here to justify some mention at Forest Whitaker. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy for the relevant information to be de-spamified and then added into the Forest Whitaker article, with a protected redirect (fully protected for a few months, with no prejudice to it being lifted early if the company become seperately notable). From the links you've listed, it doesn't appear that the company is independently notable of that one guy. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 18:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Arxiloxos has identified adequate reliable sources to support a small article on this organization, so there is no reason we should not have one. If the current text is inadequate, it should be replaced with something that is, rather than the entire article deleted.  AFD is not cleanup. JulesH (talk) 19:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Marc Graser's bylined news story in Variety was misidentified as a "press release." I've corrected that. Graser is a senior writer, and this is indeed a WP:RS. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I checked again today and the company was the subject of a Screen International news story on May 2. This page may have been created a tad prematurely but the company is the subject of multiple reliable sources and the Screen also mentioned there'll be another project announced by Whittaker at the Los Angeles Film Festival next month, which is sure to get more coverage. The article name needs to be fixed, though. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 00:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment In view of what was found, I have no objection to keeping it if Shawn or Jules want to take responsibility for the rewrite  DGG ( talk ) 23:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)  t
 * I have not and am not volunteering to do that. And AfD is not cleanup. I think it's clear based on this AfD that there are sufficient WP:RS out there to keep, regardless of the state of the article, but you should continue to !vote as you see fit, of course. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:14, 9 May 2013 (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.