Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puppets Magic 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 delete. Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Puppets Magic Studio

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested prod, rationale was "No indication that this may meet WP:GNG either here or in Google." Laun chba  ller  16:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The page now has neutral, non-bias citations which gives a fair overview of the page. Removed conflicting citations and now there are reliable, neutral citations to confirm informationRumartguy (talk) 16:40 pm, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah - to unreliable sources such as Wikipedia and blogs. Read WP:RS.-- Laun  chba  ller  16:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The 'unreliable sources' have now been removed (wiki and blogs) and replaced with reliable sources Rumartguy (talk) 16:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Stop removing the "REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE" template above. None of the four references in the article mention "Puppets Magic Show".-- Laun  chba  ller  16:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete I could not find any RS. Forget notability, I could not even find RS for insignificant mentions. Lourdes  17:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Added the official company information from reliable online source Rumartguy (talk) 17:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep There is some official information present. Umair Aj (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The new company information citation RS verifies puppets magic studio is a legal entity Rumartguy (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * delete, terrible sourcing and an author who doesn't seem to understand WP:RS. There is one third-party RS in the whole article (Evening Standard) and it doesn't even mention the article subject - David Gerard (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:ORG in particular WP:CORPDEPTH. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 19:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep There is more than one third party RS, the award (TMT news website) and there is official information present as noted above.Beeproductionuk (talk) 21:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC) — Beeproductionuk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Further citation has been added from the portfolio of 'andrewjamesspooner.com' which independently cites puppets magic studio as creating the puppet for the music video listed and thus is an independent WP:RS Rumartguy (talk) 21:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a third party, but you clearly still haven't actually read WP:RS - David Gerard (talk) 09:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG VViking Talk Edits 21:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Further citation added sourcing the puppets used in the television show 'tonight at the london palladium'. This evidence is backed up by the broadcast tv show itself, where 'puppets magic studio' received an on-screen credit each week Rumartguy (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Puppets Magic Studio is not even mentioned in your latest addition (and never mind it's from the tabloid Daily Star, which is not a credible source for notability) - David Gerard (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment The official video of Format B:Chunky has been added which cites puppets magic studio as the designer of the character in its description. Rumartguy (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * May I request you to please first read WP:Verifiability, WP:RS and WP:ORG? The more you add unreliable & primary sources, the more time is lost of diligent editors in trying to assess the source. If you need any help in understanding how Wikipedia functions, please don't hesitate to ask, but please stop continuously adding absolutely valueless sources to the article. Please just ask for help and it will be provided (but before that, read up on the links I have suggested). Lourdes  19:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.