Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Petersburg Animation Studio


 * 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   keep. Listed for 21 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Petersburg Animation Studio

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Original article was 90% spam... Spam and CSD tag removed, which leaves a notability question. There are no sources that I can find (granted, my Russian-fu is very weak). There is a Russian Wikipedia article, ru:Петербург (студия анимации), but the Russian article is also totally unsourced. If the Russians can't produce sources on this company, then I doubt we can... Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 12:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)




 * Strong keep In this case, the official website is the reference. This animation studio has produced some who-is-who of Russian animation. It is notable enough for the great animations Go-Go-Riki, which received several awards.-- GoP T C N 20:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Poor search choice:
 * Appropriate choice:


 * Keep per the inherent vageries in trying to create and source an article on a non-English company with available sourcing to its non-English company name. I am not concerned with the article at the Russian Wikipedia being unsourced, as they do not operate by our guidelines, nor we by their's.  However, in looking to OUR guidelines and considering that under its Russian name it does appear to be sourcable, this now looks to be an adressable concern toward the unfortunate, unintentional, and recognized systemic bias.  Even the google translations of the multiple Russian sources show that it has received coverage and is a recognized entity in its field... in Russia.  And so even if not sourced in their article, sourable notability to Russia if fine with en.Wikiedia.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   17:25, 26 April 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.