Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sherwood Pictures


 * 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 Withdraw. MQS convinced me again. Schuy m 1 ( talk ) 02:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Sherwood Pictures

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuy m 1 ( talk ) 23:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It has produced three movies, one of which is 5th in the box office right now. --  American Eagle ( talk ) 23:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability is not inherited. It needs reliable sources that show notability. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 23:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

*Delete nom is right, not inherited, similar to below. Notability requires 3rd party sources, just like any other article and most "sources" I find are blogs and church newsletters. Maybe someday, but not notable at this time. P HARMBOY ( TALK ) 23:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Producing major notable films is notable. Thats what film companies become notable for. DGG (talk) 23:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability is not inherited. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 23:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment this article might be a usable source to establish notability as it tells an interesting story regarding the topic. Jeremiah (talk) 23:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That is about a film. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 23:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Further down in the article it discusses the previous films the studio has made and the story behind it. I'm not saying its enough to establish notability, but if someone wants to try to improve the article with it, this could pass the Heymann Standard. Jeremiah (talk) 23:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is still mainly about the film. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 23:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - check google news. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I did. Those sources are about films. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 23:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Let me give an example: Lets say Bilbo K. Johnson builds Gibson Guitars.  What he makes is notable, who he is isn't.  P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 23:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment on use of the criterion n. The very meaning of the concept for a company is prominence in the profession, which can be shown in various ways.. Producing the films is the evidence for the notability, and the reason for it. Without them, a production company would not be notable. It's not material in newspapers about the company that makes it notable, though that is one kind of evidence for it. But the films show it adequately by themselves. It's easier generally to show notability for the films, but the true notability is the people who make them. If a production company can be notable at all, its by making notable films. Proper use of not inherited would b to say that bcause the company makes some notale films, everything it makes is not notable. DGG (talk)
 * I still don't agree that that makes the company notable. I am still going by notability is not inherited. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 00:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with DGG. Its kind of like WP:MUSIC #3 which very clearly states that producing very notable records makes the artist notable, so it seems logical to say that producing very notable videos makes a film company notable. - Icewedge  ( talk ) 00:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * but does that make the production company notable without other sources? That would be the comparison here, not the artist (comparing the musician to the actor might apply, but that isn't this argument).  Not inherited.  P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 00:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter about WP:MUSIC. It matters about WP:CORP. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 00:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, most certainly WP:MUSIC does not dictate the notability of this company but I cited it show that in some cases notability is somewhat inherited; the "notability is not inherited" clause was developed in response to claims that a work was notable because it has a notable author however it seems perfectly logical that producing many notable works would make the artist at least somewhat notable. - Icewedge  ( talk ) 00:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Icewedge added a reliable source, but it doesn't show notability because it's about the people. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 00:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * comment I have withdrawn my delete !vote (with some reservations as to quality of source) to free nom to withdraw nomination if he chooses. I still don't agree with inheritance at this time.  P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 00:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that that was a good idea. After all these keep votes, there is no way that I will have a reason to withdraw. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 00:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The one source is marginal, but enough that I have to change my delete !vote. I did not change it to keep (I think one source is too weak, but appreciate that others disagree).  As to withdrawing the nom, you don't need a reason, it's your nom.  I'm fine either way, as I said, I would have changed it to Neutral regardless. P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 00:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep regardless of the notability of its films this source along with the later half of this article seems enough to justify inclusion at this time. - Icewedge  ( talk ) 00:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Those articles focus on a film and people, not the company. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 00:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I also count the article about the film as a mention of the company since the article focuses on the film. Mentions do not show notability. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 00:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Including the one about the people involved. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 00:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure it is true that the ABC news article starts out talking about the film but the later half of the article is dedicated to a step by step discussion of the groups history and I cannot tell how you can claim The Trades article is a minor mention; the entire article is about the history of the company. - Icewedge  ( talk ) 00:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It still mainly focuses on the film. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 00:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What I mean by it mainly focuses on the film, is that the film is the only reason why there is an article. Hence the title. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 00:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep "Facing the Giants" was an important independent film release. It is not a question of inherited notability -- without this company, the film would not have been made. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because the company made a notable film, does not make the company notable. Notability is not inherited. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 01:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, but with that line of thought we would need to delete articles on MGM, RKO, United Artists, Paramount Pictures, Toho, Gaumont, etc. -- you cannot separate a film from its production company. It is not a question of inheriting notability -- the film exists only because of its producers. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. With respects to User:Schuym1, whose opinions I have learned to appreciate, I believe DGG has it correct. Though notability is not inherited, that is not reson for the notability in this case. I am not using WP:WAX, but one still must consider the bigs like Sony Pictures or TriStar Pictures. They make films that have notability, but that is not what makes them notable. Same here. That's not the qualifier. The notability is in who is doing it and what they have accomplished. This production campany has earned their notability.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * But those articles have reliable sources about the companies. I still don't agree. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 01:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that every film company with notable films is notable? Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 01:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How does the article pass WP:CORP? Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 01:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yikes... too many questions at dinner time. It seems to easily pass WP:V through WP:RS and WP:GNG through its accomplishments. Give me an opportunity to look further before pressing me for immediate answers... and please note, I was only using the BIGS as exmples of companies notable because of what they create... and certainly a company with hundreds of millions to spend on advertising and with a global distribution process will have more sources found online than a company doing their work on a showstring with volunteer. And no, I am not saying every production company is notable if they make a notable film, as one must consider the assertion being made in context with what is being asserted.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If the reliable sources aren't mainly about the subject, then it doesn't show notability. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 01:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And what do you mean by assertion being made in context of what is being asserted? Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 01:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And just in case you didn't notice, I am not patient at all. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 01:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:RS states "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made". It does not anywhere state that the sources must be entirely focused on the subject... only that they should directly support the presented informatons. In this case, where an article about one of their films also covers their part in the production of same, it meets WP:RS.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: to Eco Dude, those articles have reliable sources that show notability. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 02:02, 4 October 2008 (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.