Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Microcinema International

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Microcinema International[edit]

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

Article about a film distribution company, not referenced to any reliable source coverage to get it over WP:CORPDEPTH. The only real "reference" here is the primary source website of one of the company's founders — and other than a two-sentence introduction stating that the company existed and then didn't anymore, the article is otherwise serving almost entirely as an WP:ELNO-violating linkfarm of inappropriate offlinks to the films' IMDb profiles. (Just two of the 74 titles link internally to a Wikipedia article about the film instead of to IMDb.) As always, Wikipedia is not a platform for creating finding aids to other websites' content -- this needs to be written as a properly referenced encyclopedia article about Microcinema, not just a list of its films, and the links in the list need to be internal wikilinks, not offsite links to IMDb. All the linkfarming leaves it quite close to being speediable as unambiguous advertising, in fact, with its fairly neutral writing tone being the only thing that stopped me. Bearcat (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - obvious since there are no reliable sources. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Despite some brief coverage of this company's initiatives such as Halloweird and an Independent Exposures competition, I am not seeing evidence to support the importance claim in the stub text. Without that, it fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 09:04, 18 February 2018 (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.