Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Sky Motion Pictures

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 keep. John254 02:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Big Sky Motion Pictures[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Schuym1 (talk) 00:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Schuym1 (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Expand and source per sources: The Advocate, New Orleans CityBusiness, Sun Herald, Decatur Daily, The Times Picayune, Delta Groove, Worst Previews, Louisiana Film and Television, Eclecto Groove, Reality Wanted, New York Times, etc. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 13:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't show notability for the company, it shows notability for the films. I found a lot of those sources. Schuym1 (talk) 13:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good job! Then you see how those articles speak toward the company infusing Louisiana with money as they decide to film there. Specific reference to the company, as the film was (at the time) only in pre-production. No company, no film. No film, no write-ups. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 13:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - What I'm saying is that the sources talk about the production of the films. Which would only show notability for the films, not the company. Schuym1 (talk) 14:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Exactly. They talk about the productions of a production company. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        But it only shows the notability of the films. Schuym1 (talk) 20:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also the NYT link and the Eclecto Groove link does not talk about the company. Schuym1 (talk) 14:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The TP link is a trivial mention. Schuym1 (talk) 14:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Worst Previews has one film listed. Schuym1 (talk) 14:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Then that only leaves SEVEN reliable sources independent of the subject that directly address the notability of the production company through trough its business of being a production company. It's what they do and what they are notable for.... producing. Or do you requite more than 7? Strikes me that two should be enough per WP:GNG.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I do not think that those sources show the company's notability per WP:CORP. Let's just see what other editors think about the sources instead of arguing. Schuym1 (talk) 20:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:CORP states, "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability.". I believe Big Sky just squeeks by, as it has the multiple independent sources. But if consensus shows I am wrong, that is okay. Thanks for your courtesy. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Multiple articles that find themselves enveloped under this article creates notability by association. To tailor it to an alternative fashion: the linkage and common bonds of those films generates an inherent inclusion. It's like guilt by association. 14:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- Notability is not inherited. Schuym1 (talk) 14:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not saying notability is inherited. If Joe Smith writes five novels that are notable, that notability is also Joe's as the writer. If Joe Smith Films produces 5 notable movies, that notability belongs to Joe Smith Films as well. One is not "inhertited" from the other... one IS the other. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't agree that it shows the company's notability. Schuym1 (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, I understand that you do not. And that's why you brought it to AfD. You wanted Reliable Sources and I gave you at least 7. Now others will determine through consensus. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Having looked at the refs added to the article, [1], [2], and [3] all seem to qualify as reliable sources that are directly reporting on the film company itself. I say weak keep, because they're all discussing the same thing: the company moving its operations to Louisiana; but it's enough to give the article a chance for expansion, in my opinion. Raven1977 (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The formatting of the sourcing needs work, and more detail needs to be added to the article, but sufficient sourcing to satisfy notability as far as I'm concerned. Also, the films listed are all bluelinks and examination of the links reveal movies that are clearly notable through cast and coverage. 23skidoo (talk) 16:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A company that makes multiple notable films is notable. DGG (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2008 (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.