Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MovieJamStudios

MovieJamStudios

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

Fails to meet WP:ORG. Article is also poorly written and sounds more like an advertisement than a encyclopedia article. A7 and G11 speedy's have been removed by various people. Karl 334 ^Talk-^-Contribs 18:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: I was skeptical when I saw a company formed by five 15 year olds, but the references to articles in Bayerischer Rundfunk and Münchner Merkur satisfy GNG. —teb728 t c 19:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC) On second thought, strip back and convert to an article about their film Olympia 72. It is the film which is notable—not the studio.[reply]

KEEP : Hi, my name is Alexander Spöri, I'm one of the founders of "MovieJam Studios. I don't see a problem with the article, is there one? So in case there is one, it would change the mistake or rewrite the paragraph. It was a lot of work to right it. Because we're speaking all german. So please keep calm. Would be nice, if you won't delete it! 91.63.238.198 (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC) 91.63.238.198 (talk) 19:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC) — 91.63.238.198 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@Aspoeri2001: The main issue here is whether your studio is important enough for an article in an encyclopedia. Most companies are not that important, and as you know, your article was speedily deleted from German Wikipedia for just that reason. Another issue is that the article is not written from the neutral point of view which an encyclopedia requires. We are not asking you to rewrite it—indeed because of your conflict of interest on the subject you are strongly discouraged from creating and editing the article at all. —teb728 t c 22:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Just added all citations 2003:62:4328:A200:5DBD:1FE1:68C:33BC (talk) 06:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC) — 2003:62:4328:A200:5DBD:1FE1:68C:33BC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. sst✈^(discuss) 08:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 08:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 08:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 08:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CORP and conflict of interest concerns. LibStar (talk) 14:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : : I think the article is ordinary at this particular time, could stay in my opinion 84.168.71.153 (talk) 11:49 am, Today (UTC−7)

— 84.168.71.153 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

hilarious being ordinary is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 13:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : : That's right @84.168.71.153, could stay now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspoeri2001 (talk • contribs) 11:51 am, Today (UTC−7) Aspoeri2001 (talk) 11:59 am, Today (UTC−7)
Delete for now as the not even one year old age and the current list of sources is starters enough to show this company is not yet solidly notable. SwisterTwister talk 00:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep is okay now, it's on Google Business as well. 84.168.92.66 (talk) 12:43, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— 84.168.92.66 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

being ok or on google business is not a criteria for notability. LibStar (talk) 13:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's on in Google Business listed now, so I think there are enough sources and citations. 8200882008a (talk) 12:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— 8200882008a (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep are there enough sources etc. now? I think it does satisfy.