Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malagurski Cinema

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 redirect to Boris Malagurski. The consensus is that redirecting to Malagurski is sufficient - the cinema does not have independent notability PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Malagurski Cinema[edit]

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

The article is essentially a fork of Boris Malagurski, whose films are the only output of Malagurski Cinema. The article cites no independent sources, relying solely on Malagurski.com for it's claims. As far as I can see, there are no independent RS writing about the production company as such, merely occasional mentions in film festival 'listings', thus the article falls foul of WP:ORG and specifically WP:ORGDEPTH.

I Prodded the article, which was opposed here and here by User:UrbanVillager. IMO UV's arguments are contradicted by WP:INHERITORG and WP:ORGSIG: 'it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable … … No matter how "important" editors may personally believe an organization to be, it should not have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia unless reliable sources independent of the organization have discussed it.'

The article should be deleted IMO as any RS 'factual' info (that his films are produced by his own production company 'Malagurski Cinema'), is easily merged into the filmaker's page. Pincrete (talk) 21:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion, per reasons I gave on Talk:Malagurski Cinema. --UrbanVillager (talk) 20:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 04:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 04:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing claimed or sourced here constitutes a compelling reason why the company needs a separate article from the one about Boris Malagurski as an individual. Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which every company in the world automatically gets to have its own article just because it exists — it takes reliable source coverage about the company, verifying a claim of notability that would pass WP:CORP, for it to earn one. And UrbanVillager's arguments on the talk page basically boil down to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is not a valid keep rationale in and of itself. The company can certainly be mentioned in Boris Malagurski's main article, but nothing written or sourced here suggests a reason why he and his company would need two separate articles. Redirect to Boris Malagurski. Bearcat (talk) 18:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as the best target, nothing for the needed independent notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 04:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Boris Malagurski - nothing to indicate independent notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:57, 16 May 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.