Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Platinum Films


 * 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. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 ( talk &#124;  ctrb ) 03:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Reverting non-admin close: The nomination calls for sources demonstrating notability. DES appears careful not to argue for keeping the article, simply backing up that declining the speedy was within the bounds. DES has also added some sources, but those sources are implicitly refuted by the nominator, and explicitly so by SwisterTwister. A good LONG time passed in which either DES or someone else could come and either make an argument that those sources weren't good enough or to provide new sources. It's a "delete as notability not verified". Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Platinum Films

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notability. I nominated this for a speedy delete, declined on the erroneous grounds that a Bafta makes a production company notable WP:NOTINHERITED & the unsubstantiated claim about a new animation technique. Which may not be notable: no evidence is produced that anybody has used it.TheLongTone (talk) 11:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC) TheLongTone (talk) 11:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that to survive A7 notability need not be demonstrated or even asserted, only a claim of significance which might lead to notability. That is why I declined the speedy. Note that claims need not be sustantiated or sourced to be enough to avoid an A7. I have to wonder about the amount of WP:BEFORE checking you have done on this. I added one source right after declining the speedy and expect to add others within the next day or two. I urge reading the linked essay before doing any more A7 tagging. DES (talk) 13:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Maybe delete simply because it seems there's not even a shred of good third-party coverage aside from the current links; my searches found nothing particularly significant with the best results being...various websites here, listings here and simply mentions for Pinewood Studios here. SwisterTwister   talk  19:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 14:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:44, 14 July 2015 (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.