Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhythm Boyz Entertainment


 * 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. Guerillero Parlez Moi 17:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Rhythm Boyz Entertainment

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No significant coverage. Fails GNG Alphaonekannan (talk) 03:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  13:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. Alphaonekannan (talk) 03:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep It is one the most successful Punjabi film production companies, producing many of the highest-grossing Punjabi films. And, it has significant coverage though.SangrurUser (talk) 12:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Your argument that It is one the most successful Punjabi film production companies, producing many of the highest-grossing Punjabi films has nothing to do with notability. Since you are the creator of this article, please point to a source which gives significant coverage. Alphaonekannan (talk) 06:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Here are the Box Office Mojo and Deadline sources. The film Chal Mera Putt 3 produced and distributed by the company the company entered top 10 in United States and Canada. If you want to go through other secondary and independent sources you can go through the references section of the article.SangrurUser (talk) 09:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Reply:, the Box office Mojo is simply listing box office collection of a movie. The next one is just a review of a movie. None of this gives significant coverage to the coverage. There is not even a single source in the article which talks about the company in depth and accounts to notability. Please point out one such source so that I can withdraw my nomination. Alphaonekannan (talk) 04:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 03:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - has made multiple hits over the years. Mathmo Talk 15:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. — VersaceSpace  🌃 22:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep - Searched in Google News: This was the 2nd one down. Looking at the way the mention even though brief is mentioned in The Tribune, April 8, 2008 article by Gurnaaz Kaur, "It’s all about money, honey!" about the upcoming film, Golak Bugni Bank Te Batua and how it reads with "Directed by Ksshitij Chaudhary, it is a Rhythm Boyz Entertainment film that stars Harish Verma and Simi Chahal in the lead roles". There's huge familiarity with how that's written. Please forgive me for using this term but some may say .... "if it was the Anglosphere equivalent, it would be the same as mentioning the mainstream production companies we all know!" I know that foreign films are soimetimes hard to gauge sometimes but for me this is easily notable. A quick glance in other searches confirms this. Karl Twist (talk) 12:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a company therefore the appropriate guideline is NCORP. We require sources which contains significant and in-depth "Independent Content" that directly discusses the topic company. We don't have that. Instead we have brief mentions-in-passing (mostly in relation to articles on movies where the topic company was involved in some capacity) and PR/Announcements. There's nothing that even comes close to what is required. The Keep !voters reasoning - that because some of the movies were successful, the production company is therefore successful - is not supported by any of our guidelines (also see WP:NOTINHERITED). Similarly, the GHITS argument with a side-helping of Anglosphere bias is also unsupported by any hard data and links/references. Topic fails NCORP.  HighKing++ 14:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - Just looking at the impressive resume of this company and what is already available in Google News etc., it's obvious that they are very prominent in India. Karl Twist (talk) 10:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * We require references/sources that discuss the *company* in-depth and containing "Independent Content" as per WP:NCORP. Also see WP:GHITS. This topic has been at AfD for nearly a month and to date, not a single reference has been located which can be used to establish notability as per NCORP.  HighKing++ 15:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - This source clearly says "Rhythm Boyz Entertainment is also one of the industry’s leading film houses and the audience always look forward to their movies", also check this.SangrurUser (talk) 03:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That source from kiddaan.com is little more than a blog with the "Contact" as a gmail address. The article has no attributed author. I could go on - for example the tone, the lack of in-depth information, etc. But easiest to just tell you that it isn't a reliable source and fails WP:RS.  HighKing++ 13:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Check this source, it is from reliable source The Tribune. It says "Rhythm Boyz is among the top production companies". Also, it is clear it is a notable company, so I suppose we can keep the article with a tag of "in-depth source required".SangrurUser (talk) 08:57, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Looked at the first 15 references. Very poor junk. Company founders information, interviews with the partners. Typical startup news. It may be an entertainment company but it fails WP:NCORP, specifically WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS. The rest of a mix of press-releases, film reviews which are not specific to the company, PR, non-rs links, film awards box office numbers, music awards, numbers, again not linked to the org. Its a complete mess designed to disguise its true nature as private startup.   scope_creep Talk  09:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Leaving aside the obvious non-reliable sources, trivial mentions like, , qualify REFBOMB#Citations to work that the article's subject produced. I have doubts on the individual notability of this company's founders Amrinder Gill and Karaj Gill, due to the subpar sourcing in those too. — hako9 (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete replete with trivial mentions. Nom is correct. Buffs (talk) 19:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete only trivial mentions that do not provide evidence of notability.  Pinguinn     🐧   10:30, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - OK, a lot of this is viewing India from the outside. How about from the Inside? If I was in India I would know where to look. I still believe it is notable. Karl Twist (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - For a regional Indian language, which has very limited audience, opens in top 10 in North America. So, obviously it is notable. Also, I have above mentioned The Tribune source which directly says as "one of the top production companies", and some other local sources which highlight its notability. Earlier, a user said "some of the movies were successful", well most of the movies produced by this company are success. Almost every film produced by them opens in top 10 in Australia and New Zealand.SangrurUser (talk) 11:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - Check this source by Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It says "Rhythm Boyz Entertainment, a Canadian entertainment company which also operates in India and the United States. It is one of the major players in the burgeoning Punjabi film industry, which caters to Punjabi speakers in India, Pakistan and diaspora communities around the world." I think this is enough for proving notability.SangrurUser (talk) 13:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No. Maybe enough for notability of Chhalla Mud Ke Nahi Aaya, not this article. This fails NCORP. — hako9 (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Both, an International and an Indian source describing it as among the "top and major" companies. Also, these lines are not just quotes or trivial sources by the founder or someone else, these are from the authors themselves.SangrurUser (talk) 02:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * And this source gives the significant coverage too.SangrurUser (talk) 03:04, 7 August 2022 (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.