Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logolite Entertainment


 * 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 as non notable. Natalie 01:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Logolite Entertainment

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable production company, possible vanity/advertising page. Google search on name brings back only 17 unique on 24 returns total. Company is somehow listed on IMDB, but no films linked, another red flag. Delete. MikeWazowski 07:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC) — J jons (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Tikiwont 23:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC) — Peety1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Tikiwont 23:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, per lack of independent sources. --Tikiwont
 * Keep Just heard a pitch from this company. Thier company agenda is great.  J jons
 * Delete per above. Scienter 19:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Retain I have been to the company, it is credible and has several prospective projects with major studios entering into production this year. The company has 14 projects listed in development on IMDBpro--regular IMDB does not allow users to access projects in development.  The article is one of the better written articles on this site, and an encyclopedia by and for the entire world should promote independent art whenever possible. Peety1 19:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Peety1 claims that IMDBpro shows multiple films in development - unfortunately, this is either a lie or fabrication. Since a direct link is impossible, due to the pay nature of IMDBpro, this image, captured this afternoon from that site, shows that Logolite has no films listed in development on the IMDB. I repeat, absolutely zero films. My original assessment of non-notability stands. MikeWazowski 00:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, neither "their agenda is great" nor "has several prospective projects" are reasons for keeping an article on an obscure company that clearly fails to meet WP:CORP. As for the article being "one of the better written articles on this site", allow me to disagree.  This is an uncited, unsourced stub with spammish overtones.  And if my own quick searches are any indication, there's no reliable sources out there to expand the article with.  Xtifr tälk 08:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Having written "there's no reliable sources out there to expand the article with" where "there's" is a contraction for "there is," making the sentence "There is no reliable sources our there...," I'd hardly consider Xtifr the authority on good writing. An encyclopedia is meant to inform the world and community at large.  If I was considering submitting a screenplay to Logolite Entertainment, the more I can read about the company the better.  If you find any of their statements to be false, edit the page--who are you to judge who might benefit from the information given.  Give the company a call, I checked their website, the phone number is listed. — Sepul101 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment - Twice now, comments detrimental to Logolite's claim of notability have been removed by anonymous editors. The first, 74.10.5.226, resolves to Marketshare Partners whose address is 11100 Santa Monica Blvd. in Los Angeles, coincidentally the same address listed for Logolite Entertainment. The second anonymous IP, 76.166.26.252 resolves to RoadRunner HoldCo LLC. While the IP owner is based in Virgina, the page states Allocations for this OrgID serve Road Runner residential customers out of the Honolulu, HI, Kansas City, KS, Orange, CA and San Diego, CA. According to the WHOIS information for logolite-ent.com, the registrant (and Logolite founder) lives in Orange, CA. I'm not going to directly say that we're seeing a meat/sockpuppeting campaign by Logolite or people acting on their behalf, but it seems likely, based on the evidence. MikeWazowski 02:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Vandalized twice more by 63.249.90.31 and 216.59.169.98, both California based IP addresses. MikeWazowski 16:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * ""Comment"" It seems to me that the only thing [MikeWazowski] has demonstrated is that users up and down the california coast disagree with his unfounded comments. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of objection to the entry, otherwise. Peety1 20:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - vandalized again (here and here) by 216.59.169.98. For Peety1 (who last edited within four minutes of 216.59.169.98, I would remind the editor that if my comments are unfounded, please show evidence otherwise. Everything I've presented can be backed up, and I will also remind the other editors that comments are not allowed to be removed from AfD discussions. MikeWazowski 20:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per Mike Wazowski. TheRealFennShysa 15:53, 26 March 2007 (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.