Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Five Oceans

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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Five Oceans

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Another contested redirect. Due to recent discussions at ANI, AfD is the only option left. Current sourcing has a total of zero in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:51, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Bulgaria. Shellwood (talk) 15:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The lengthy Deadline Hollywood article cited in the body is essentially about the launch of the company and its first production. Per WP:GNG, "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". Can't see what makes this article any different from 87North Productions, The Film Arcade or even Apatow Productions, for instance, where one of the three key references is a Tumblr page. Anthony Whitaker (talk) 15:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don’t see how this recent startup meets WP:NCORP. Mccapra (talk) 22:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for PROMO. I only get hits for the Oceans Eleven film and those that came after. Oaktree b (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject just doesn’t pass WP:GNG. If WP:GNG were satisfied, there would be a case against deleting. However, there is no evidence that the subject meets WP:NOTABILITY requirements that would warrant having an article. If there was evidence of WP:NOTABILITY, then having an article could be considered. However, the subject isn’t notable as I have outlined, and therefore the article should be deleted. Shawn Teller (he/her) (talk) 03:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: promo, doesn't pass GNG or BIO. Might be TOOSOON, but Draft isn't an viable option. // Timothy :: talk 01:30, 2 April 2023 (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.