Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matilda Media


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 19:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Matilda Media

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is an advert for Matilda Media built by a bunch of one of multiple SPAs that are pushing Matilda and associated companies and people. It mostly sourced to promo material and routine announcements, falling short of WP:CORPDEPTH. See also Articles for deletion/Rightstrade and Articles for deletion/RightsCloud for related spam. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Does not appear top have yet done anything notable, except get itself associated with a large number of non-notable companies and people. I would consider this qualifies for G11, except it would be helpful to have a decision here to permit quick removal of what I suspect will be later attempts to insert the same article. `  DGG ( talk ) 03:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete because this is an un-notable group of companies trying to hitch a ride on Wikipedia's star.  Green Giant  supports  NonFreeWiki  ( talk )  12:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete We cannot list every start-up venture here, there is nothing notable about a couple of people who have bought the film rights to a couple of books and claim to have started a museum (a national digital museum which has no on line presence). When someone outside the company decides they are worth mention they can re-create the article without copy/pasting it from a company prospectus. &#32;  Djapa Owen (talk) 13:32, 27 February 2014 (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.