Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shoman 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 no consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shoman Productions

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough independent coverage to have an encyclopedic entry. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 05:54, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep does have a history back to 1980 with films and tv series so there should be offline sources if not online Atlantic306 (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Production companies are rarely notable and this one misses the mark. Wikipedia is not a directory of nn businesses. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Atlantic306; producer of various old television serials dating back to the 1980s era of Pakistan Television. Mar4d (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The question is not whether some sources might exist, but whether the subject itself is notable. The mere fact that the subject might have been involved in some notable films, does not make the subject notable.--Rpclod (talk) 14:17, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. No indications of notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This production company has produced very famous movies in Pakistani Film industry. This production company is notable and a many notable people are attached with it. --Spasage (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – It has produced a number of films, one of which was WP:notable enough to be mentioned by the BBC, apart from Pakistani or South Asian media. Leo1pard (talk) 09:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the subject helped to produce something that was notable is irrelevant. See WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH for notability criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 12:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I would prefer that this page should be kept as a redirect to Shoaib Mansoor, since its summary and references are there already. Leo1pard (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. There are a few sources mentioned, but is it sufficient for notability. M A A Z T A L K 09:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Closing admin should keep in mind that none of the keep votes are policy based, falls under WP:ILIKEIT. Störm (talk) 15:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to what I said above? Leo1pard (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't ~~struck~~ your original !vote so a closing admin is likely to look only at the reasoning for your Keep !vote. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see it being only WP:ILIKEIT. Shoman Production is separate production company is notable. It is mentioned widely on the internet. Redirecting to Shoaib Masoor is tantamount to deletion and it is not a Keep.There can be room for improvement, but definitely not a candidate of delete or redirect. I am not sure which notability criteria this article is missing. --Spasage (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so you say it is notable, great, but you haven't proved it. You've only expressed an opinon. There are guidelines contained in WP:NCORP that tell you the criteria for establishing notability and you haven't once referenced this guideline (or any other) as a reason to keep. A closing admin will not pay any attention to "opinions" - there must be reasoning based on policy/guidelines. If you can produce two references that are intellectually independent, not based on press releases or other company announcements or interviews, that either discuss the company in depth (and not its "products" or "employees") or contains independent analysis or opinion on the company, then you will have made a strong case for inclusion. Without references of these sort, according to our policies the article must be deleted. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.