- 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 Keep. Michig ( talk) 07:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Muse Entertainment ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seems to fail WP:CORP notability. Very little news on this company other than routine officer replacements. Brianhe ( talk) 00:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 01:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 01:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 01:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 01:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 01:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 01:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete as I simply see nothing better. Pinging past user Mean as custard. SwisterTwister talk 07:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep per sources being available to show this topic as meeting WP:ORG. ie: Broadway World TV News Desk, TBI Vision, & more, Needs work... not deletion for the lack. Schmidt, Michael Q. 12:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep per sources by Schmidt plus others (eg Variety [1] and Deadline [2]). Side note, if even it would had failed to meet GNG and WP:ORG, I would had kept this one for WP:IAR, because of the impressive number of notable films and TV-series they produced. Cavarrone 16:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- @
Cavarrone: Doesn't "because of the impressive number of notable films and TV-series they produced" invoke inherited notability?
Brianhe (
talk)
09:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- no, it invoked the WP:IAR policy as I pointed at, as well as my common sense. Anyway, as I explained above, my vote is based on available sources, as the company appears to easily meet WP:GNG and WP:ORG notability guidelines. Cavarrone 09:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- @
Cavarrone: Doesn't "because of the impressive number of notable films and TV-series they produced" invoke inherited notability?
Brianhe (
talk)
09:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 00:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 00:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep as prima facie notable. VMS Mosaic ( talk) 04:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'm probably just dense but what makes it prima facie notable?
Brianhe (
talk)
09:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Because I took one look at it and the current sourcing. If this is not notable on its face, then nothing is. I believe this is the most extreme case of WP:BEFORE I have ever seen. VMS Mosaic ( talk) 11:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'm probably just dense but what makes it prima facie notable?
Brianhe (
talk)
09:20, 9 November 2015 (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.
- 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 Keep. Michig ( talk) 07:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Muse Entertainment ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seems to fail WP:CORP notability. Very little news on this company other than routine officer replacements. Brianhe ( talk) 00:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 01:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 01:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 01:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 01:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 01:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 01:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete as I simply see nothing better. Pinging past user Mean as custard. SwisterTwister talk 07:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep per sources being available to show this topic as meeting WP:ORG. ie: Broadway World TV News Desk, TBI Vision, & more, Needs work... not deletion for the lack. Schmidt, Michael Q. 12:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep per sources by Schmidt plus others (eg Variety [1] and Deadline [2]). Side note, if even it would had failed to meet GNG and WP:ORG, I would had kept this one for WP:IAR, because of the impressive number of notable films and TV-series they produced. Cavarrone 16:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- @
Cavarrone: Doesn't "because of the impressive number of notable films and TV-series they produced" invoke inherited notability?
Brianhe (
talk)
09:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- no, it invoked the WP:IAR policy as I pointed at, as well as my common sense. Anyway, as I explained above, my vote is based on available sources, as the company appears to easily meet WP:GNG and WP:ORG notability guidelines. Cavarrone 09:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- @
Cavarrone: Doesn't "because of the impressive number of notable films and TV-series they produced" invoke inherited notability?
Brianhe (
talk)
09:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 00:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 00:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep as prima facie notable. VMS Mosaic ( talk) 04:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'm probably just dense but what makes it prima facie notable?
Brianhe (
talk)
09:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Because I took one look at it and the current sourcing. If this is not notable on its face, then nothing is. I believe this is the most extreme case of WP:BEFORE I have ever seen. VMS Mosaic ( talk) 11:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'm probably just dense but what makes it prima facie notable?
Brianhe (
talk)
09:20, 9 November 2015 (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.