Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Alternative Media Group


 * 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. --BDD (talk) 17:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

No Alternative Media Group

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

advertising and coat rack. Article fails to show notability with all given sources being about the founders. Most Google hits are social media or founder-related. So fails WP:GNG. The Banner talk 10:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep; Thanks for your concern The Banner. There's much more improvement to be done. There's a small history with the Clear Channel Communications controversy this company had. There's an International Band Project that supports a youth center with some notable bands that will going under music in the future. Upcoming indie/major film work, more clients and more information. This is not an advertising article, but an established independent company article like any other indie company label that has an article on here. Creating this article has taught me even more about this company. - hollathag 11 September 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollathag (talk • contribs) 12:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - I think this passes for an article, it's a fast growing company in film production with much more crediting. The studio building of the company is also historic that was built in 1807, which I think can somehow be put in there. - FlieGuy 4:54. 11 September 2013 (CT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.254.185.240 (talk) 21:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, This article is rather interesting and shows it's notability through references and further search. I think there is room for improvement if more. This is an independent film company upon many others that have an article on here. So it passes in my book. - User:iNetwrkk 3:12am (EST) 12 September 2013 —  iNetwrkk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Struck as duplicate vote; see SPI. --BDD (talk) 17:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete The company exists, yes... but fails the inclusion criteria set at WP:CORP.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 07:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: And though I hope I am wrong, in looking at the contributions of Hollathag, 64.254.185.240, and iNetwrkk (See interactions), I felt it sadly necessary to request a sockpuppet investigation.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 08:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, no hits in google books, imdb isn't a reliable source and coverage in decent independent sources seems non existent.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. None of the sources in the article at the moment are really acceptable. Zero book and news hits. Of web hits, I found something asserting they exist, a passing mention, a press release, a passing mention and another passing mention. Fails WP:GNG. Could I request Hallathag, 64.254.185.240 and iNetwrkk read, respectively, WP:NOEFFORT, WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:INTERESTING. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   12:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I note that and  have been blocked for sockpuppetry.  Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   10:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:42, 26 September 2013 (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.