Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rok Studios


 * 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   no consensus. No consensus for a particular action has emerged herein, although the discussion is slightly leaning toward deletion. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 09:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Rok Studios

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG. The references given do not discuss the subject in detail, just links to films produced by the studio. I've also searched google, but no reliable sources are found discussing the subject. Maybe it can be merged with iROKOtv? Jamie Tubers (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 13:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * keep The umbrella body of the netflix of Africa looks notable to me. sources exists.Terriblechristian (talk) 10:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC) Note to closing admin: This user has been blocked for sock puppetry
 * Struck !vote from sock. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 09:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: as spam. Promotional article with no evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 12:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: I couldn't find any sources online that discusses the studio in significant detail.  V e r s a c e 1 6 0 8   (Talk) 13:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)



 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Weak keep. While Nigerian film and television is not well-covered in the west or by Wikipedia, the information in the article is verifiable and the ROK has enough mention and and it's works enough commentary to meet WP:ORG through that guide stating "if the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability". It's a suitable stub if kept neutral, and the company itself can give us details about itself under WP:ABOUTSELF.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 09:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 00:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Relatively new, but coverage appears to be expanding enough to meet WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Can you kindly provide reliable and independent sources that discuss this subject?--Jamie Tubers (talk) 22:19, 20 March 2015 (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.