Login
Login

WP:Articles for deletion/Stone Bench Creations (2nd nomination)

: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. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

=[[:Stone Bench Creations]]=

AfDs for this article:
    {{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stone Bench Creations}}

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Stone Bench Creations}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Stone Bench Creations}})

This company does not seem to have received any significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. The article is seems to exist to promote the brand and work of a company that does not meet our notability standards. Salimfadhley (talk) 00:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

:Reply - I see that you have answered your own question, and I think I agree with you. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

  • You do realise that The Hindu, India Today and New Indian Express are reliable sources used in the article? imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

:Comment - Our standard is significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. A newspaper may be reliable for certain topics and less reliable for others. Each reference must be reviewed on it's own merit. You can defend an AfD by showing good quality sources to attest to the notability of a subject. --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

:None of the references in the article meet the criteria required and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 18:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

:*First of all, you get the logic wrong. The notability guideline means that if some criteria are satisfied then the subject is notable. However is the criteria are not satisfied, we are open for further discussion, because there cannot be possible 100% coverage by the Rule Book. In this particular case, if the company produces many films and these films are reviewed (and even have Wikipedia articles!), certainly the company deserves coverage. Compare this with professors. We judge professors by their professional output and how this output is judged by peers, and not by how much "in depth" biographical information about that professor can be found in a single taken article. Typically there is none, with the exception of really exceptional people. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

::*Hi {{u|Staszek Lem}}, that's not correct, references must meet both ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. Also, take a look at WP:NOTINHERITED. No company "deserves" coverage. They're either notable or not and we have guidelines which tell us the criteria for establishing whether or not a company is notable. Other guidelines exist (e.g. WP:BLP) for other topic areas and have different criteria. HighKing++ 15:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

::** {{tq|They're either notable or not }} -- Once again you fail to recognize your logical error. Let me be more detailed. The policy says {{tq|" An organization is generally considered NOTABLE if it...."}}. It does NOT say "An organization is considered NONNOTABLE if it....." Meaning tghat your {{tq|"or not"}} is not based on the policy. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

::**YOu are alkso confused about "NOTINHERITED". The guideline says "merely because it was associated with some other, legitimately notable subjects. This is usually phrased as "____ is notable, because it is associated with " THe porduction house is not "merely associated" -- films it pproduced are it MAIN reason for life and notability.COntinuing my analogy with professors: they are notable because of trheir WORK. They ARE their work. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

::::*Hi {{u|Staszek Lem}}, just to summarise, you didn't push back on references needing to meet both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND but you push back on the argument that none of the references meet the criteria. You say that references about the founder or the movies are implicitly also about the company and that NOTINHERITED doesn't apply because your interpretation of "associated with" falls short of the relationship between the company and the founder/movies. I disagree for the reasons I've already set out above which are the most common interpretations at every NCORP AfD. HighKing++ 17:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

::::** I don't give a damn about this company, so I am stopping here. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete, per {{u|HighKing}}'s detailed analysis of the sources - this fails NCORP. GirthSummit (blether) 14:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.