Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pittot Films

: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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

=[[Pittot Films]]=

:{{la|Pittot Films}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pittot Films}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{findsources|Pittot Films}})

Unable to find reliable secondary sources via Google. Provided links are either trivial or don't mention Pittot Films, per WP:COMPANY.

Doubtful individual films pass WP:NF as guideline excludes IMDb and plot summaries without critical commentary as proof of notability.

Rror (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:CORP as [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Pittot+Films%22&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&ie=utf8&oe=utf8 availble web results] do not show notability. The included section or "sub-article" about their film [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1556933/ City of the Damned] might later merit its own article, but it sure doesn't belong in this one. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:N/WP:CORP. As a production company this is not a notable entity. Third party references in the article do not discuss the production company, and in any case are pretty shaky basis for an article about anything. Rogue Cinema is possibly OK for the actor being interviewed--though it should be noted that interviews aren't the best sources. The NY Times page (not article) is just syndicated data of unclear authorship. There are quite literally 109 ghits on this subject, many of which are user profiles or otherwise user-generated content. Admittedly, we may be looking at the "next big thing", but as is our practice we need to wait for that thing to become big before making an article about it. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:11, 2 April 2010 (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.