Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lava Bear 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. The consensus is that there is sufficient coverage to establish notability. Michig (talk) 21:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Lava Bear Films

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I foresee some controversy in this article, so I'm bringing it here. This article was created last month, and cites some notability unto itself, however, I'm not seeing it in the sources provided. Granted, this seems a little weak, I suppose. Still, it's a relatively new production company, with a film that is currently not yet in production as far as I can tell. Furthermore, from what I see, the article is attempting to hinge on the notability of the corporate CEO for this production; the issue here is that notability of the company is not inherited from its CEO.  Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 18:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep the two Variety articles and the Hollywood Reporter article demonstrate notability to me. They are not primarily about Linde the CEO, they are about the setting up of the company and the announcement of its first film project. There is some element of promotional text about the current version of the article and it is clearly being edited by Linde himself, so there are WP:COI issues. But these aren't enough to warrant deletion, IMHO. The company is sufficiently notable. I spent some time a month or so ago, ensuring the related David Linde article was properly sourced. At the time I took a look at Lava Bear Films and decided it was notable and I don't see anything to change my mind. Best, Sparthorse (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Per Sparthouse, basically. It has definitely received coverage, while it is somewhat thin at the moment--there is certainly ample sourcing to justify a stub here. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 21:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Significant coverage in reliable sources demonstrates it satisfies WP:ORG. I linked some more coverage in the article. The article definitely needs work but deletion is unwarranted. Lagrange613 17:49, 27 December 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.