Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalliope 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   delete. Spartaz Humbug! 16:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Kalliope Films

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Film production company. Fails ORG because of no significant coverage. Part of walled garden. Contested prod. Christopher Connor (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Any movie production that is currently being made in 3D is a big deal. Most Google hits are commercial references. Kalliope Films 3D production is not invisible. There is enough there to qualify for WP:GNG from general media coverage.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 20:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete, only claim to fame appears to be a film which has not yet started production. See WP:NFF as well as the usual notability guidelines. Article seems to be throwing in famous names to make a case for notability, but Michael Bay isn't actually affiliated with this company and they were not involved in the making of Avatar; see WP:INHERITED. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's a reference that states that the lead designer for Avatar is working on Hansel and Gretel. http://collider.com/hansel-and-gretel-in-3d-poster-synopsis-michael-bay-the-institute-kalliope-films/38600/  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 01:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This doesn't contradict anything I've said. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, but a person involved in the making of Avatar is involved in the making of Hansel and Gretel. And he works with Michael Bay's company. And it's backed up by an article in "Variety".  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 23:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So, in short, you're arguing that this company has no notability of its own, but has inherited the notability of other people at one or two removes. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, very little actual coverage to satisfy WP:GNG; a few passing mentions in a very short article or two about a future film that doesn't even appear to have begun pre-production, with the rest being press releases and other such material. Apparent attempt at inherited notability as well. Appears to be part of a coatrack that includes the now-deleted article on the founder of this company. -- Kinu  t/c 21:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Surely, the article in 'Variety' on its own is more than enough coverage. Isn't 'Variety' considered to be a big deal any more?  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 23:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The article in Variety probably wouldn't constitute significant coverage even of the film; it's certainly not significant coverage of the studio. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 27 April 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.