Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acropolis Films, LLC

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 of the debate was delete all articles. Mailer Diablo 05:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acropolis Films, LLC

Delete - Apparent vanity and advertising page. Non-notable - Google search brings up less than 200 returns, a large number taken from information redistributed from this article.

I am also nominating the following related pages for similar reasons - self-promotion tied to main article, miniscule Google returns:

Der Erste
Acropolis Films

MikeWazowski 03:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, vanity page gone OTT. Royboy crashfan 04:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advertising, vanity, non-notable, fails WP:Corp --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 04:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN, advertising. *drew 10:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is also a popular term i.e. per nom. feydey 12:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn, ad. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 17:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable, adspam. Obliterate the infinitely looping, distracting, obscenely large Image:Logo For Gif.gif as well. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT delete - This is just a young company, and has not been given a chance to be updated by the public. Would you consider deleting Amblin Entertainment when it was in its infancy just because it had only released "ET"? And as for the infinitely looping logo, it's taken directly from their company website. Maybe someone should request a non-moving logo instead of committing to deletion because of its novelty. Photoactivist 22:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that ET made $14 million its opening weekend, the comparison is apples and oranges. As for being a "young company," can you show that it meets notability standards such as WP:CORP? --Kinu ^t/_c 23:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - - How about "Brick (2006 film)"? Would that be more to your liking? It was only recently bought by Focus Features, and has actually been completed for over two years. The fact is, this particular company cannot be compared for not having an "Opening Weekend" in national theaters. It's an independant film company. --Photoactivist 23:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - If it releases a film that sees any sort of commercial or critical success, then it's worth including, but the single film that has been released is neither. Night Gyr 22:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- - Perhaps you're right, why should an encyclopedia be responsible for maintaining information and recording events, when it can be a top 100 list of popular trivia? The one film that has been released by this company is the only dedicated documentary in Wikipedia databases regarding the subject of Racewalking. That alone should ensure its reason for non-deletion. Not to mention that the film is regarding the World Masters' Championship, which is an international event in equally high standing as the Olympics. Photoactivist 22:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment & withhold can you show that it passes WP:CORP? If so I'll vote keep. ---J.Smith 22:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- - I cannot. Of the three rules to pass WP:CORP, the only information I can seem to find about the company is that they're self owned, and do not have stock holders. --Photoactivist 23:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then delete leaveing open the posibility of repoening when it meets WP:CORP. (Racewalking? My step dad was in the finals to join the US team in the 70's.)---J.Smith 06:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. If it releases a notable film, we can add it back in. -M^ask 01:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Arbusto 06:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. IMDB already exists; if we want to be them, let's just link to them. -Syberghost 22:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- - Then why do we host films at all? This goes exactly back to my argument of why the documentary by this company should be included in Wikipedia. If for no other reason than the fact that an encyclopedia's main function is to record information on human endeavor and events of human achievement. (it behooves me to mention that the film centers around the World Master's Championship, which could only be participated in by members of each country's elite qualified members. as I've said before, it's similar to the Olympics) -Photoactivist 22:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The subject dosn't make the film notable. ---J.Smith 23:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. TheRealFennShysa 22:51, 28 March 2006 (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.