Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anton Capital Entertainment

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 merge to StudioCanal#Background. Sam Walton (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Capital Entertainment

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Bgwhite with the following rationale "Plenty of refs out there". Unfortunately, I don't see those refs - there are some mentions in passing, press releases, directory entries, and the usual assorted spam, but nothing that seems to pass cited policies. Perhaps BGwwhite will be kind enough to list and discuss those refs here (and let me repeat - discuss, not just list - please explain why those refs you found are quality refs). As far as I am concerned, as I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I see some routine announcement coverage (two items now added as references). However these are more about StudioCanal than the firm which intermediated the finance. I don't feel they provide the coverage needed to demonstrate its notability - a selective merge to mention the financing deal at StudioCanal#Background may be the most that is merited? AllyD (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to that article would certainly be a valid compromise. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I do see plenty of valid refs to keep. However, as it is now owned by StudioCanal and a small article, a merge/redirect would be best. Bgwhite (talk) 20:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above rationale. -- Whats new?^(talk) 21:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to StudioCanal#Background as a "cleaner" outcome; anything useful can be picked up from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Studio Canal, as not much content involved. Atlantic306 (talk) 05:59, 11 November 2016 (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.