Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monumental Pictures


 * 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. Changes to the article do not adequately address the concerns of the delete !votes. Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Monumental Pictures

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Explicit advertising but the author does not agree with that The Banner talk 07:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Article's references comprise of 1st-party sources that do not give any evidence of notability. Aust331 (talk) 08:51, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ref bombed to look like something, but it's a shameless promotional article. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 17:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone  07:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone  07:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete None of the references cited here are independent, they all seem to come from the organization itself. This is almost G11-worthy; it's fairly promotional and WP:TNT is applicable.  Omni Flames ( talk ) 08:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep This citation does not come from the organization itself: http://www.imdb.com/company/co0010987 The nominator's argument is WP:IDONTLIKEIT as shown by user SwisterTwister's attack on the founder's wiki immediatly after attacking this wiki. Contentcreatordata (talk) 08:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC) (talk • contribs) 08:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * IMDb is not considered to be a reliable, notability-giving source on Wikipedia, so that cannot establish notability. As far as ST's argument goes, promotional content can be a reason for deletion on Wikipedia if it is bad enough, although it would have been good if they'd put in something about the notability as well. I can't really see where ST's argument comes from him disliking the page nor where his AfD is an attack. However what made me post on here is more that you referred to the page as the "founder's wiki". There is no WP:OWNERSHIP on Wikipedia and it's well within ST's rights to nominate the page if the page has issues. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I must also warn you that any conflict of interest must be disclosed. Offhand your edits are promotional enough to where it gives off the strong impression that you are affiliated with this company. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: This might be speedyable as unambiguous spam. In any case, it looks like there is a film company by the same name run by Debra Hayward that is unaffiliated with this company. Offhand I'm finding absolutely nothing to show that this article is notable. I'm tempted to clean the article up since it's been citation spammed by WP:PRIMARY and unusable sources and if I find any sources I will, but offhand I'm not really finding anything out there that isn't primary, a self-published source, or in a place that Wikipedia would otherwise see as unreliable and/or non-notability giving. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:51, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete There's just nothing out there to show that this organization is notable. It exists as a company, however existing does not give notability as it's expected that an organization will exist and put out work. If the director's article is kept this can redirect there, however this article is far too promotionally written to be kept. The article has sources, however none of them are usable to show notability and this is actually a pretty good example of how inserting a ton of sourcing can backfire pretty heavily. Not only does the sourcing not show notability, but the insertion of 20+ unusable sources actually makes the organization seem less notable. That the article is also written in a fairly non-neutral manner (ie, to make the company look as good as possible) and contains content that could be argued as original research since it's written in a manner that comes across as personal opinion doesn't help much either. My point in saying all of this is to emphasize to the closing admin that this article history should not be kept - if the organization does ever pass notability guidelines then it would be better to just start an article completely from scratch. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Being a fan makes me "affiliated with the company?" That's unfounded speculation. I have no affiliation with this organization in any way other than being a fan of theirs for a very long time. Notability is also subjective. And again, it's an organization, not a company, and Blake Fitzpatrick did found the organization. Referring to him as the founder is not in any way promotional in my opinion. It's a fact. A user immediately adding an article that was already approved after being selected for deletion before to be deleted yet again is an attack to remove all information about any of this in my opinion. In any case, they have a new movie coming out soon that I'm sure will gain more than adequate publicity coverage to make this article of note by the looks of it. It opens it's first theatrical screening in September from what I can find. They are also in production on other projects that are of notable interest. They have also been involved in notable political activism. Their film "Insignificant Celluloid" was featured on a televised NBC program about Satara Stratton (screen-name Satara Silver) who was in the film. That's notable, is it not? As for Debra Heyward, her company (which hasn't officially made anything yet) is based in the UK (http://www.imdb.com/company/co0103483/), and is not an organization, but a for-profit corporation, so that would not be a U.S. based organization or company and a separate wikipedia article entirely. There was also a production company with the same name in Russia that started in 2006, but again, this would be a different article. I also think they went under financially, as their website is no longer around: http://www.monumental-pictures.com/ and they haven't announced or made anything since. Please tell me how to improve said article to be more neutral and I will happily do so, including starting from scratch.Contentcreatordata (talk) 10:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I made some minor changes. Do not know if this is what's desired, but Y'all do what you want, as it looks like I'm pretty much completely in the minority here. I'm just trying to help add relevant information to wikipedia to help improve what the website was invented for. I'm just trying to help. It won't matter to blake Fitzpatrick one way or another. he's about as reclusive as they come. He probably would prefer all of this to be deleted. It's also probably why you can't find anything on him or his organization. But I think he and his work are significant enough to denote mention and know plenty of others that do as well.Contentcreatordata (talk) 12:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What you need is at least a bunch of independent (not in any way related to the subject), reliable (no social media or blogs), prior published sources. The own website, facebook, youtube and imdb are complete nono's... The Banner talk 12:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned, those types of things probably wont be available for a few months. :/ and I can't find other articles because they have dissapeared or links are now broken. There were articles in a few california newspapers that I can remember that I cannot find anywhere now. Contentcreatordata (talk) 13:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * So you admit that there are no sources conform Wikipedia:Reliable Sources to prove notability of your "article"? The Banner talk 13:43, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There are now :) Contentcreatordata (talk) 14:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete' - per nom. There is nothing here in the references or the text except self promotional hype.  Velella  Velella Talk 12:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Just looks like information to me. If I look up other artist pages they look the same to me. I do not understand how mentioning things is immediatly "self promotional hype."Contentcreatordata (talk) 13:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Primary sourced and promotional. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Article has been completely rewritten following wikipedia's rules. Contentcreatordata (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.