Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wolfgang Productions of Minneapolis

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. - Mailer Diablo 13:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang Productions of Minneapolis

Almost no assertion of notability (makes videos for local talent in Minneapolis), most Google queries turn up 0 relevent hits, almost completely unverifiable except for [1] [2]. --Interiot 22:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Per nom. Borderline speedyable as group with no importance asserted. Making videos for talent in Minneapolis is not an assertion of importance. Irongargoyle 23:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is not paper. Markovich292 06:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Care to elaborate on how "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia" applies as a justification for keeping in this instance? I see nothing notworthy of inclusion in a paper or electronic encyclopedia. Irongargoyle 17:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - To me, this looks like an accurate article, and it certainly isn't detrimental to wikipedia. People might hear about this company and want to learn more about it, and since we are not limited by space I don't see why it should be removed when it has a potential reader base. It looks like the only criteria for deletion is notability, but it doesn't seem to be in conflict with any policies. Markovich292 18:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's hard to say if it's accurate or not without sources. Wikipedia's editors aren't unlimited, are you volunteering to hike out to Minneapolis to find reliable sources for it, and then maintain the article? Unmaintained articles about people/organizations are a small detriment... ask any OTRS user how many slander/libel complaints we get. I just don't see this article being maintained. (eg. the company is defunct... they released a final DVD set in 2005, but there's no mention of it anywhere on the internet) --Interiot 18:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hehe that would be a very short hike for me :) The problem is, even if I find a source AFAIK I can't just scan something and put it onto wikipedia as a RS. Anyway, considering the company is not out there ripping people off, slander/libel probably won't be a big problem. Things in the article like that unsourced video may deserve removal, but I don't think it warrants complete deletion. Markovich292 20:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - The slander/libel issue is that random people add sneaky vandalism, nobody notices for a while, eventually the people associated with the organization Google themselves, and then get upset when they find the falsehoods here because it's since been distributed to a bunch of different mirrors. The fact that most of the article can't be independently verified makes it even harder to deal with sneaky vandalism. --Interiot 21:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ezeu 17:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Peta 04:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable. Google search on "Wolfgang Productions of Minneapolis" brings up 167 returns, only 14 unique. Search on ("Wolfgang Productions" +Minneapolis) brings up 274, only 104 unique, and most about a book publisher, not video company. MikeWazowski 18:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. Localzuk^(talk) 20:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; completely unremarkable local production company. --MCB 23:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. No way to verify this info, no references. EdJohnston 01:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this entry fails to meet the criteria of WP:ORG.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:04, 4 October 2006 (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.