Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Retort (production company)


 * 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.  Sandstein  20:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Retort (production company)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't seem to exist any more. Not obviously notable in its own right. Part of Fremantle Rathfelder (talk) 20:43, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per nom. Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:ORG / WP:GNG.  --  Wikipedical (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg  jhp  jm  01:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Rathfelder it still exists, it just has a new name which is Hare and Tortoise. Wikipedical except there's a million links about Retort now renamed to Hare and Tortoise on Google, and are all easy to find. I can't understand why so many articles on Wikipedia like this get "nominated for deletion" when there's countless independent articles online. If the sources could only be found in books/magazines/newspapers offline then fair enough as someone would have to buy/borrow the said books/magazines/newspapers or go to a library to read them. But when sources can be found on page 1 of Google it's not that hard to find the sources and add them yourself is it, before nominating an article for deletion? I've added multiple articles from the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Comedy.co.uk and Chortle among others to show it's notability. Danstarr69 (talk) 10:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's still part of Fremantle. Why is it notable in its own right? What is its legal status?  I can see it as a registered company. Rathfelder (talk) 10:55, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Rathfelder because like many TV networks and production companies in the UK and worldwide, they have many subsidiaries. The BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Channel 4, Sky, UKTV etc all have different production companies they use for their shows, and sometimes produce shows for each other. Fremantle is no different. It has countless production companies around the world, 7 of which are in the UK. It's notable because it's produced many big shows for the biggest TV networks in the UK. Even if they were shows for the smaller networks it wouldn't make it any less notable. Here's Hare and Tortoise (formerly Retort's) registered company address https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06689783. Danstarr69 (talk) 11:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Other than multiple reworded press releases announcing the new company 'Hare and Tortoise,' I have not found any significant coverage about the company. The references you have inserted into the article are mentions of the company, which does not satisfy GNG.  --  Wikipedical (talk) 15:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedical it doesn't matter if they haven't produced any shows yet as they're not a "new company." They're the "old company" renamed. It's just like how BBC One used to be called BBC 1, Channel 5 used to be called FIVE, All 4 used to be called 4oD, Sky Witness used to be called Sky Living etc Hare and Tortoise used to be called Retort and before that it was part of Talkback Thames before they split into 4 distinct companies. How hard is it for you Wikipedia experts to understand? If the other 3 companies Talkback, Thames and Boundless (which were all part of Talkback Thames before the split) are seen as "notable" then why exactly is "Hare and Tortoise" formerly known as "Retort" not seen as notable when it's done just as many shows as they have. Danstarr69 (talk) 20:22, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The number of series this company has produced does not establish notability, nor do mentions of the company in the reworded press releases announcing those series. It's not about quantity.  What establishes notability is significant coverage in independent reliable sources, as I said above.  That's Wikipedia policy.  See WP:ORG and WP:ORGDEPTH.  --  Wikipedical (talk) 18:52, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:25, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete First off, notability is not inherited and I am unable to locate and references that meet the criteria for establishing notability - there is no significant in-depth intellectually independent coverage of this company (regardless of its current name). Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 16:41, 20 October 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.