Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asylum Entertainment

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) 19:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asylum Entertainment[edit]

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

Page was created and maintained by employees or officials from the company itself, under the two accounts AsylumEnt and Asylument818 (yes, two of them, either be blocked for sockpuppetry). Almost the entire article is unsourced, with only minor notability coming through a single source--Deadline.com--which is not enough for constructing significance for enwiki, wherefore the article fails WP:SIGCOV. Furthermore, the entire filmography table is sourced through IMDb, violating WP:Citing IMDb, then again notability is not inherited. Lordtobi (✉) 19:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NOTADVERTISING. - GretLomborg (talk) 03:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, page was created by editors with a clear POV. Besides that, the article is unsourced and as the company was purchased in 2013, more sources are unlikely to be found or generated.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:55, 14 July 2017 (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.