Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Six Sigma 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. Killiondude (talk) 05:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Six Sigma Entertainment

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Can't be notable with few films to their name. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm  (talk)  13:49, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 14:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 14:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 14:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 14:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable for being the production company of several high-grossing films.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 13:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * They are business ventures. So, they need significant independent coverage to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm   (talk)  18:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep This movie-making company has produced many highly successful box office hits since 2013. This article already has 3 newspaper references and a movie industry website reference. Plus one film industry website IMDb external link. I just rechecked them and they are all working. Ngrewal1 (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete -- a nn production company; significant RS coverage not found. Film producing companies are rarely notable and this one misses the mark. Created by a SPA. Somehow, it contains a link 2nd ARY Film Awards, which seems emblematic of promo articles that mushroom around ARY Digital. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   21:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG, references fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Notability is not inherited.  HighKing++ 14:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I note that originally closed this as "no consensus" and then (wisely) reopened to allow for admin action instead. There was no reasons provided for a "no consensus" decision. While that decision is puzzling to me and I see no basis for it, I will provide more reasoning to justify a Delete. Not one of the Keep !votes uses policy or guidelines to justify a Keep. The reasons provided fail the criteria for notability - notability is not inherited regardless of any associations with high-grossing movies or movies that were box-office hits. The references included available also fail the criteria for establishing notability.
 * This tribune.com reference has no attributed journalist, is based on a company announcement (see next reference), is a mere mention in passing and is more about the association with a "legendary writer" working for the company. Reference fails WP:INHERITORG, WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH.
 * This pakistantoday.com reference is clearly labelled a Press Release. Fails WP:ORGIND.
 * This arynews.tv is a mention-in-passing (the name is mentioned once in a list of the other producction companies) for a movie-opening. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
 * This nation.com.pk reference has no accredited journalist attributed to the article and is also a mere mention-in-passing (name mentioned once in the context of being owned by Saeed). Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
 * This galaxylollywood.com reference is another mere mention-in-passing. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
 * This tribune.com.pk reference is yet-another mere mentions-in-passing (two mentions as "Saeed's production company, Six SigmaEntertainment"). Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
 * Finally, this arynews.com reference has no attributed journalist and doesn't even mention the company. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
 * In summary, none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability.  HighKing++ 18:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe it was due to this. Störm   (talk)  18:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , that explains it. I agree with what you wrote there, it did appear like a simple !vote count. Still, I felt I should expand on the reasoning (above) to make it clear that there have been no compelling reasons put forward to Keep.  HighKing++ 19:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Consensus is still unclear.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — CYBERPOWER  (Around ) 01:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete sources do not indicate this is a notable topic. Meager coverage as demonstrated by High King above, shows this company fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:N, WP:NRV and Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion WP:PROMO. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:24, 27 January 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.