Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ragged Crow


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 04:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Ragged Crow

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Independent film company of questionable notability. Possibly some notability for some of their projects or individuals, but a Google search on "Ragged Crow" shows a wealth of primary sources, social media and sales links, but no significant coverage from independent reliable sources found in the first 10 pages of results. Article appears to have been created/edited by a pair of SPAs doing nothing but creating promotional articles for this company, its principals, and its projects. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Ragged Crow is listed in the British Council Films Catalogue as the production company in the entry for Stealing Elvis, it is also listed on IMDb... Ragged Crow is notable for having made many films that have screened at Filmstock, Norwich Independent Film Festival, Portobello Film Festival, Rushes Soho Shorts Film Festival, London Independent Film Festival, Crystal Palace Film Festival, London Short Film Festival over a period since 2008... It emphasises quality low budget film-making and has a reputation in the underground film-making community... I do think it a shame if notabiltiy is mostly indemnified by a google search, which may vary from user to user, because of their preferences...  I believe strongly that people who make films will want to know what this company does...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seditonary (talk • contribs) 15:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)  — Seditonary (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * As an addendum, surely IMDb, British Council & Plectrum TCP are bona fide secondary sources?...--Seditonary (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)Seditionary
 * Please review WP:RS. IMDB is suitable as a jumping off point for guiding one in searches, but is not considered reliable enough as a citation. British Council Film is reliable enough to verify the company's existance (though I do not think that is in doubt), but simply being in their catalog does not confer a notability. Please read WP:CORP to better understand Wikipedia requirements for showing a company as notable.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. There's no reliable sources to show notability. IMDb does not automatically give you notability, nor does being listed in the BCF listings. Fails WP:GNG. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79

Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be an encyclopedic platform that "anyone can edit use modify and distriblute"? (- Wikipedia: Five Pillars). A platform that does not "apply hard and fast rules" (- Wikipedia: Policies and Guidelines). Ragged Crow may not be Miramax or A Band Apart, but they they have had a four year history of making short films, that have screened at reputable festivals, and a feature, which might be considered noteworthy precisely because it was produced for £5 grand for 7 days of filming - cross ref with other films that are notable for their achievement despite low budgets such as The Blair Witch Project. I am a new contributor and understand that I might be met with with certain suspicion, but is this a case of "bite the newbie"? Many articles in Wikipedia must have had lowly beginnings. I am not saying that this article is full and complete, but I do reiterate that it is a decent enough starting off point for a subject that can be expanded upon... From an acorn does an oak grow... And I do believe that aspiring film-makers are interested in seeing small independent film production companies included on Wikipedia... If in the future Ragged Crow proves to do nothing more than they have already, then of course this should be reviewed. But Wikipedia (Five Pillars) encourages contributors to "be bold" (but not reckless) and as such I think this article should be given a chance, and when more citations and references become available, I will endeavour to add them... I might even find that other contributors by then are interested enough to do likewise... --Seditonary (talk) 08:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC) — Seditonary (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * WP:SECONDARY says, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources." That is what we need here, especially to satisfy the notability guideline outlined at WP:ORG and to be able to cover this topic in an encyclopedic manner. The same goes for other topics closely related to Ragged Crow. I would suggest reading Conflict of interest if you are personally involved with any of these topics. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 13:41, 26 October 2011 (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) 00:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Ragged Crow as a production company has no notability separate from that of its principals, Sam Edwards and Ed Edwards, and all of its films are already mentioned in both Sam and Ed's articles. It appears that none of Ragged Crow's films have gone on general release anywhere yet, just been shown at film festivals. (And screenings at the Portobello Film Festival won't count much toward notability; the festival screens every film that is submitted to it.) Contrary to what Seditonary wrote above, a film does not become notable just for being low budget -- there are lots of low-budget films that don't receive distribution and aren't covered in Wikipedia. What is particularly notable is when a low-budget film receives significant public attention, like what happened to The Blair Witch Project or Paranormal Activity. A low-budget film that plays at a couple of film festivals and doesn't go on general release can't be compared to that. I suspect, however, that some of the negative reaction to this article may have come from the formatting problems. If User:Seditonary, or another editor, will fix the formatting problems with Sam Edwards (poet, writer & independent film producer), Ed Edwards, and/or Stealing Elvis, then I'll refrain from recommending "delete" on those articles or nominating them for deletion myself. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ragged Crow hasn't received much coverage anywhere but the IMDb (which isn't a reliable source). Just take a look at the Google News archive search (also linked at the top of the page) to see what I mean. None of the six results have anything to do with the company. Seditonary, if more outside references become available, then the inclusion of the article could be justifiable, but for now, it fails the GNG. Chris (talk) 00:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete On the basis of MQS's analysis. When in doubt about articles on this subject I rely upon MQS, who both knows the field and is sympathetic to my own view of being as inclusive as makes sense, We both know there's a limit, and the limit must be defended to prevent us degenerating into a mere directory.  DGG ( talk ) 14:56, 7 November 2011 (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.