Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rocktopuss Films
=[[Rocktopuss Films]]=
:{{la|Rocktopuss Films}} – (
:({{Find sources|Rocktopuss Films}})
Not notable. The one films it has made (as listed on imdb) is 9 minutes long, received only a handful of reviews and have not won any awards. It's next film is not out yet. Kinkreet~♥moshi moshi♥~ 13:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep I have a vested interest in this article, I have donated money through past indiegogo campaigns along with hundreds of others to this company to help it create its films. Its a registered and forward thinking company which only operates on donations just like you. Since wikipedia is an open source of information why should it go against this company if they have so far only got one imdb registered short film when they have another coming? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arghwhy (talk • contribs) 13:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC) — Arghwhy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment Wikipedia is a encyclopedia not a advertising agency for the company. Read WP:COI and WP:ADVERT...William 13:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Coment I don't believe the company is in anyway gaining any advertising advantage through their being a wiki article on them. There is no mention asking for money or advertising productions. Arghwhy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:20, 8 March 2013
- "comment" this page offers no more or less information than any other production comoany articles. If this article fails then there is significant questions to be asked about all the others who clearly advertise release dates for upcoming productions. 213.205.225.83 (talk)(UTC)
- Delete. Studio fails WP:GNG at this time. As per above WP:ADVERT applies. I suggest a speedy close under G11....William 14:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Disagree it fails under WP:GNG when there are citations showing "Significant coverage" and "Reliable" coverage from a major news organisation Maclains.ca regarding the above mentioned short film. As for advertising there isnt any advertising for any of the studio's work. Just pure fact. Arghwhy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- REdirect for the moment to Outsiders (2012 short). A 9-minute film that gets an award may be notable. The company that made it need not inherit that. When they produce something else notable, we might consider reviving the article. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep per significant coverage. NickCochrane (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 22:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Redirect to Outsiders (2012 short). The significant coverage simply does not exist, the Maclain piece does not even mention Rocktopuss neither does the other source in the article. Outsiders has coverage the production company does not. J04n(talk page) 13:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
:Reslist comment - Could we have some discussion of the sources provided on the article? ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. IMDB is not a reliable source, nor an indication of notability, so that's ref 1 gone. Hull Daily Mail is neither a reliable source, nor anything other than a local one, so that's ref 2 gone. Ref 3 is a university blog - not reliable. Ref 4 is from the same source as ref 2. And I don't see any significant coverage of the company in any of those references either. The only significant coverage I can find is [http://www.theopinionatedgeeks.com/2012/08/rocktopussfilms-interview.html], which isn't a reliable source. There's press releases, twitter accounts, Facebook pages and YouTube channels... and nothing else. As such, this company fails WP:GNG. They've also not produced any notable films - I don't believe Outsiders (2012 short) is a notable film, and will AfD it for that reason. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Comment ref 4 was printed in various different publications other than just the Hull Daily Mail. I also read it in the Yorkshire Post which covers all of yorkshire — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.121.99 (talk) 20:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
:::*Doesn't matter. Hull is in Yorkshire, so the HDM source being published in the Yorkshire Post makes no difference - it's not a national paper, and if it's come from the HDM originally, it's still an unreliable source. And that's completely ignoring the fact that the word "Rocktopuss" isn't mentioned anywhere in that reference anyway. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: I just wanted to note that I wasn't really able to see where Outsiders has won any notable awards. I see where someone else mentioned that it won an award, but I can't find anything that verifies what award it was, let alone if the award is notable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete/userfy. Here's the issue. Even if we count the three newspaper sources as usable as far as showing notability for the company (rather than just saying they're local and don't count), they aren't enough to show a depth of coverage. It gives me the hope that there will eventually be more sources once the second film and/or the TV show releases, but we can't bank on either production getting coverage. Most production companies, even the bigger ones that produce more visible films and shows, tend to fly under the radar. As nice as it'd be for us to be able to include every production company out there, that's not what Wikipedia is for. All production companies have to pass notability guidelines, which ultimately boils down to a depth of coverage in reliable sources. The only reason some other companies might have their pages on here might be because they haven't been nominated for deletion yet in one format or another, so the IP saying WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't really help as a keep argument. I have no problem with anyone userfying this, although I'd recommend that they look for an experienced user to take them under their wing in order to keep any concerns of COI or possible promotional speak out of the article. As far as concerns of promotion go, I don't see where this article is written with a promotional slant. I will, however, warn User:Arghwhy that promotion doesn't have to be "give us money, here's the link" for an article to appear promotional. Most of the time concerns of self-promotion tends to come from words or phrases that might seem innocuous, but don't read as neutral to other editors. It's a pretty easy thing for new editors to fall into without realizing it. Heck, I did this myself for the longest time before another editor got on me for it. Hopefully this explains things a little more, but if Arghwhy has any further questions, feel free to ask on my talk page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
:*Tokyogirl79, I did also mention the fact that the sources don't even mention Rocktopuss Films for the most part :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)