Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parkwood 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   no consensus to delete. While there is an argument to merge, it is currently sourced well-enough. After 18 days of debate, this AfD needs to be closed. Bearian (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Parkwood Entertainment

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Delete - A non-notable company that has received no non-trivial coverage from multiple, verifiable, reliable or independent sources. A list of productions to which it has contributed, sourced by trivial mentions in sources, does not satisfy WP:CORP and fails WP:IINFO. SplashScreen (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 16:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 16:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I have read the article and checked the reference and the topic is pretty notable. I don't clearly understand the nominator's rationale, since it has been covered by many reliable sources and seems (for a basic glance) to be important. Again, i must suggest the nominator to thoroughly read WP:BEFORE. — Hahc 21  01:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So WP:ITSNOTABLE? And which part of WP:BEFORE has been violated? SplashScreen (talk) 06:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you even bother to read what you are linking to? WP:ITSNOTABLE calls for a comment that is either "topic is notable" or "topic not notable", both in which were not in violation here. I suggest you take some time to actually read polices, with WP:BEFORE probably be the most important one. Cheers. Statυs  (talk) 09:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, Splash, I recommend you to read the entire WP:BEFORE, also, you might check WP:AADD. — Hahc 21  16:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What the nominator has said, sans puffery, is "the article seems to be pretty notable because it's important, so yeah". SplashScreen (talk) 18:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep sufficient for General notability guideline. One in what can be seen as a series of poorly thought out nominations. --Fæ (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You are going to have to explain why, rather than quoting WP:JUSTAPOLICY and slagging off the nominator as AfD is WP:NOTAVOTE. Maybe you should directly concern yourself with the arguments brought up in the opening post; WP:AFDFORMAT can help if you are struggling. SplashScreen (talk) 21:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice, I'll go by the normal consensus process. My opinion is based on the contents of the article, which anyone can read for themselves, so it seems fine to me. --Fæ (talk) 21:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Text of article explains why it is notable" is an exact quote from WP:ASSERTN. Spooky. SplashScreen (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As you have become abusive elsewhere, I'll not be bothering to engage with you further. Bye --Fæ (talk) 21:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep and Move to "Parkwood Pictures". Six references are currently included. 1 looks okay. 2, 3, 4 and 6 call the company "Parkwood Pictures". 5 does not support the text and should be deleted. Reference 4 is enough to justify notability. The other references only mention Parkwood in passing and don't really support notability. Axl ¤  [Talk]  10:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The existence of one reference is not enough to justify notability. SplashScreen (talk) 10:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Beyoncé. The firm has no notability aside from being her production company, and that's all the coverage I could find - parenthetical mentions of it as her production company. Same is true for Parkwood Pictures. The same is true of the existing references in the article - a passing mention of the company, in connection with Beyoncé. --MelanieN (talk) 03:43, 13 July 2012 (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) 04:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Looking at those references I tend to agree with MelanieN. This needs more discussion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to Beyoncé per MelanieN. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Nominator is clearly unaware of his/her own reasoning for nominating this, and every other article he/she has nominated for deletion. The article contains a substantial amount of release, even if those releases seem to be dominantly by Knowles. The referencing is reliable, and the article is well written. The users above me have pretty much closed this discussion as Keep. WikiUhOh (talk) 03:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC).
 * Merge per MelanieN above. There is sourcing, but it addresses the singer, not the subject of the article. The exception is reference 4, which is a press release. Once I actually delved into the sourcing, there isn't much there that wouldn't be better served at the singer's article. I suggest we keep the edit history in the redirect in case better sourcing materializes in the future. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  04:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The company has legitimate sources attesting to its activity. The article is just. The Real One Returns (talk) 05:56, 23 July 2012 (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.