Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mind Blowing World

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mind Blowing World[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY. The two references are a long way off from establishing notability: one is a press release by the company, the other one doesn't even mention it. Schwede 66 04:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will tell you this - I think it's borderline, but there are both editors and administrators who would speedy delete it as spam, with such advertizy phrases as combined 40 years of experience and saying they support courageous and bold filmmaking. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is about notability. If it's notable, spammy phrases can easily be taken out. Schwede 66 04:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This could have been nominated for speedy deletion given its blatantly promotional tone. Nick-D (talk) 01:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The first of the given references is primary ("Mind Blowing World is delighted to announce") and the second is about Pawno rather than the firm, which does not inherit notability. Nor am I locating anything better: fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 11:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nearly also speedy material if not for the "critical acclaim" claims, overall article is still questionable for the needed notability and there's nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 13 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.