Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4Digital Asia

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. JForget 00:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4Digital Asia

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

no assertion of notability, particularly considering the parent company was repeatedly deleted. Ironholds (talk) 19:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. The article certainly doesn't show, indeed it barely asserts notability. I took a look to see if I could find some sources using Google News.[1] I see two articles about the subject (they generate mulitple hits but look to be verbatim copies), a brief announcement about the formation of the imprint and a comment from a spokesperson when one of their films was banned. Everything else looks to be either a passing mention or a false positive. I am just not seeing the kind of coverage needed to build an article. Of course, if sources can be shown to exist (either because I missed them or they aren't available online) they should be added and the article kept, but until that time, I have to recommend deletion as the best course. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was able to find some ([2], [3]) reliable sources that mention the company in relation to a film they represent. However, WP:N requires that the "sources address the subject directly in detail" which they do not; I was unable to find any such sources. Should the subject meet the notability requirements in the future, I hold no prejudice towards recreation at that point. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the very well-reasoned discussions above. Policy requires deletion here. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnotable company with no significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources, only a few blips. Fails WP:N and WP:COMPANY. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:45, 12 March 2010 (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.