Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supreme Rocket Productions


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 11:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Supreme Rocket Productions

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

No evidence of notability in reliable secondary sources. Gnews turns up 0 sources. Ghits turns up wikipedia and homepage only. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: No reliable sources. SL93 (talk) 00:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

And as all has a start, off course it isnt a mountain full of material, but the material they do have is valuable and is over 40 projects.... that is not a number to ignore... !! and as Whikipedia is a constant growing experience about one's evolution and achievements in life, i say OF COURSE YOU SHOULD KEEP THE MATERIAL... IT IS CLEAN, IT ISNT BIAS, IT IS TO THE POINT AND ONLY BASED ON FACTS AND MATERIAL, IT HAS LINKS AND IT HAS PLENTY OF NEEDED INFORMATION.... I SAY KEEP IT AND I SAY LET IF GROW BECAUSE IT WILL GROW... STEVEN SPIELBERG WAS BORN A SPEILBERG RIGHT? BUT HE WASNT BORN A GREAT FILM VISIONAIRE UNTIL VERY LATE IN LIFE... SO... LET IS GROW... AND WATER IT... DONT BURN IT... --Anaphoto (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC) — Anaphoto (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete as currently failing WP:CORP and WP:WEB. An article on this topic is premature. Perhaps next year.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * KEEP IT' unless you are from another world, and lived under a rock for the last few decade, fashion as well as fashion films are a very important industry, maybe not to you, but to millions of other people, if it wouldnt matter and wouldnt be reliable then it wouldnt make the bilions in revenue. The surces are reliable and are there to view, all you have to do is click on the link... what is so hard?? — Anaphoto (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete - No coverage in WP:RS; fails WP:CORP. Current sources appear to be mostly videos. None but shining hours (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * KEEP IT - WHAT IS INCREDIBLE IS THAT THE LAST ROCKET SCIENTIST SAID THE FOLLOWING "CURRENT SOURCES APPEAR TO BE MOSLTY VIDEOS" .... AHMMM... MAYBE BECAUE IT IS A PRODUCTION COMPANY AND THEIR JOB INVOLVES..... AH..... VIDEOS ??? FASHION??? PRODUCTION??? IF THEY'D MAKE BURGERS THEN YEA, I'D BE WORRIED TOO... BUT NO... NO BURGERS... NO COFFEEEEEE.... JUST FASHION AND FASHION VIDEOS AND MAGAZINE COVERS... SORRY TO DISAPOINT... MAYBE YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN A NEW YORK CITY COP.... LOOKS LIKE YOU MISSED YOUR TRUE CALLING... BECAUSE EDITING CLEARLY IT ISNT IT FOR YAH.... ANY OTHER INCREDIBLE GENIUSES ARROUND THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO ON A SAT. EVENING ??? TOOK YOU 2 MINUTES TO WRITE DELETE IT.. TOOK ME 2 WEEKS TO PUT ALL TOGETHER... HUMAN NATURE, EH ?? RUINING OTHER'S WORK FOR NO REASON ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.37.36.70 (talk) 00:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)  — 187.37.36.70 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2012 (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.