Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Powerhouse 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 delete. Spa votes given little weight, as have assertions of sourcing. If you have sources you need to cite them. Spartaz Humbug! 14:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Powerhouse Films

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional tone; crappy reference format; most of "article" consists of page after page of product catalog. I don't know whether the current version can be salvaged, or if we need to blow up this one and start afresh. Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  23:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete if, as it appears, this company distributes films rather than makes them or has any creative input. Notability would need to be achieved by receiving general, secondary, non-industry coverage about the company, rather than piggy-backing on the notability of the films. It's only been established for a year, so unlikely to have made any lasting impact. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Have you seen the number of video distribution companies that have pages dedicated to them on WP?? E.g.: Category:Home_video_lines, Category:Home_video_companies_of_the_United_States Are you going to call for all of them to be deleted?? Cagwinn (talk) 00:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Some of them clearly meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Feel free to nominate those that don't. As I say above, this one in particular seems to very new, and piggy-backing its notability on its 'products'. More than that, by listing all of their releases with catalogue numbers and available formats, the company is clearly using Wikipedia as an extension of their website to sell their products. The article should be deleted for being a blatant advert. Sionk (talk) 11:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What's the reasoning behind this? Should one wait a few years before creating a band/company/film page because otherwise they want to "sell their products"? Furthermore, the company did not create this page, boutique label fans did. Like they did for Criterion, and Arrow, and all pages of this kind. Why don't you delete Sony's List of Instant Game Collection games list? By your standards, it makes people want to buy PS+ subscriptions in order to enjoy all those games. A blatant advert, really. MouseyN1 (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete seems to fail GNG - I've done a before check and am unable to find a way to redeem this either &#32;DocumentError (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - there are numerous other pages on WP dedicated to other video distribution companies (see for example: Category:Home_video_lines, Category:Home_video_companies_of_the_United_States) that have virtually the same format; why should this one be specifically targeted for deletion?? How about trying to fix any issues it might have - or even just start a conversation on the issues in the pages Talk section?? Seems not only rash, but overly vindictive to call for immediate deletion. Cagwinn (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep notability is established by substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. The first two cites show the company is significant and important and has been noted as such. FloridaArmy (talk) 03:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment None of the "substantial coverage" is intellectually independent. The first cite is an interview with the founder and therefore fails WP:ORGIND. The second cite is an accouncement/press release and likewise fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.  HighKing++ 17:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The indicator label is far more than a distributor. It’s a curated collection with genuine first party content created to accompany each release. This takes it far beyond the realms of such titles as Now That’s What I Call Music which is on Wikipedia and is a blatant redistribution with no original content. Here’s the link https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Now_That%27s_What_I_Call_Music Would you consider taking this for deletion using the same reasoning? I think not. As previously commented on, the request for deletion seems more than a little malicious and I have to call into question the motives for such a request considering the amount of useful information available on the page that contravenes no established Wikipedia rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flux Ultra (talk • contribs) 09:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. It passes WP:GNG, "Label has won awards ("Indicator won Home Cinema Choice magazine's Label of the Year award". Direct interviews with the magazine are here as well. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, but remove catalogue. This content has already been deleted at AFD per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTCATALOGUE.  -- wooden  superman  09:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, but if kept remove catalogue. Company fails notability guidelines.  The catalogue content has already been deleted at AFD per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTCATALOGUE.  -- wooden  superman  16:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The previous AfD related to a list article of films created by this company. A lack of article about the company itself was cited as a rationale for deletion then...and now someone has created such an article. Many sources.  The list article of films is entirely consistent with other pages such as: List of Masters of Cinema releases & List of Criterion Collection DVD and Blu-ray releases.  Constructive suggestions presented as to how these concerns can be addressed in order maintain the page are likely to be addressed. ''' Sarac3ns (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Article is about a company, not a list of DVDs or films, so your argument doesn't wash. Sionk (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The article is about the company and the releases from that company which are a curated collection with genuine first party content created to accompany each release. Were the company article to be placed separate to a page featuring a List of Indicator Series releases consistent with those Master of Cinema & Criterion pages would that be sufficient? Worth adding that the page: List of Criterion Collection DVD and Blu-ray releases - contains both company information and release details. Sarac3ns (talk) 18:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: It passes WP:GNG. Ciccio.santini (talk) 09:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * keep Passes GNG. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete No indications of notability for this company. Notability is not inherited and this topic appears to rely on the notability of some of the movies it is associated with. The Keep !votes above fail to provide any reasoning for assertions such as "passes WP:GNG" or that the nomination is "more than a little malicious". The criteria for establishing notability requires two intellectually independent references from reliable sources. That available references fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG.  HighKing++ 00:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep This article subject fully passes WP:GNG with significant coverage across multiple sources.  Bythebooklibrary (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment and a Note to Closing Admin. Please note the number of suspiciously fresh editors to this AfD -, and  in particular. To date, several editors have pointed out that they are unable to find references that meet the criteria for establishing notabilty as required for organizations per GNG and WP:NCORP. Can any of the editors who believe that there are references for this topic that meet the criteria for establishing notability, please post links here so that other editors can determine if there are good references available to establish notability? Thank you.  HighKing++ 17:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete -- does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH and significant RS coverage not found. Film distribution companies are rarely notable and this one misses the mark. Notability is not inherited from the notable films in its catalogue and there's nothing better. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:12, 21 January 2018 (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.