Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Caledonia Night Sky Co.


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 10:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The Caledonia Night Sky Co. and Jerry LaBuy

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log) :Also the related article Jerry LaBuy

Not a notable film company Theresa Knott | token threats 08:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom - no signs of notability Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The company is on IMDb as having produced independent films. Wikipedia is a strong encyclopedic information source for independent film and fests. Not stating anything that isn't notable, true or relevant to possible users. Just making it available.Cinesven
 * IMDB can be edited by anyone. We need a much better source for notability. Theresa Knott | token threats 09:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The page for filmmaker Jerry LaBuy links here too. He has produced independent films as well. Not trying to state anything that isn't notable, true or relevant to possible users for the information. Again just making it available. Cinesven —Preceding undated comment added 09:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC).
 * IMDB is used as a main reference for almost all indy filmmakers on Wikipedia. Cinesven —Preceding undated comment added 09:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC).
 * Comment It's not just about making films, its about making notable films, that have reliable sources establishing their notability Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No refs to establish notability; no notable films. And as half the article describes the logo which is clear to see it appears there's very little of note to say about the company. I42 (talk) 10:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment for keep I believe I understand your position but in the film festival community these up-and-comers are notable. I've worked/judged on film fests and Wiki and IMDb are both accepted sources of initial information. We use them to check facts and find out additional details. People tend to mock Wikipedia for having poor and one-sided information. I am not one of those people. But this info for Mr. LaBuy and his company are extremely neutral and not sales or promotion by any means. Just facts. Facts you would read about for any filmmaker which someone looking for more information on them could find here. I was just trying to expand Wikipedia which I use and enjoy. If this information is unwanted here then please delete the pages ASAP. Because speaking from experience having the deletion notices at the top of the pages is harmful to his submissions to film fests, which in turn could harmfully affect his career. This was not my intention. When we see things like that as judges it influences our decisions negatively and I don't want this to affect any of his submissions. Thank you.Cinesven
 * But surely the reason people use Wikipedia to check facts is because Wikipedia editors have to check our facts......Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not disputing that you need to check the facts and in my previous comment I was trying to applaud you for doing so. Wikipedia would be a huge mess if you did not try to do this. I guess I'm saying this site is used by us industry people quite a bit and works best when background info and facts on young, actual filmmakers is readily available. It's sometimes hard for us to find facts on them elsewhere. But again, if this factual information is unwanted by the policies and decision makers please discard these 2 pages right away so my good intentions don't harm any of his future chances. --Cinesven (talk) 12:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Hadn't spotted that this AfD was for two articles. Only difference it makes though, is that I'm saying to delete two articles, not just the one Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 14:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —PC78 (talk) 22:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Userfy both articles back to author as being too premature. Let them develop their careers and successes enough to have coverage in reliable sorces... and then bring it 'em on back.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 10:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage, non-notable fails WP:CORP. JamesBurns (talk) 02:32, 10 April 2009 (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.