Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bigfoot 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Atmoz (talk) 17:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bigfoot Entertainment[edit]

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

Company of EXTREMELY questionable notability, references are either "not found" pages, self references, or do not mention the article subject in any way, shape or form. WuhWuzDat 06:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Danger 14:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Danger 14:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Yes, curent article has problems... but article tone can be corrected and article dead links can be removed and replaced with active ones. There are enough independent reliable sources speaking toward this company (example: Hollywood Reporter) and enough speaking about the company and its expansion into the Phillipines,[1] that we can fix this one through regular editing. I may even have a go at it myself. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum... I just spent a few hours taking the over-hyped and poorly sourced article that was nominated and have addressed advert, fluff, tone, style, and sourcing. It now looks much better... encyclopedic and properly sourced. There is more that can be done, yes... but as long as those with COI stay away, this one can serve the community and its readers...as notable to the Phillipines is notable to en.Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Relies a lot on multiple uses of one or two local newspapers, but with Schmidt's changes, I think there's enough there to show notability.--Korruski^Talk 09:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much for the acknowledgment... but before anyone else says "one or two local papers" I wish to clarify that
1. while there are many more sources availabe, the current article has sourcing to 22 seperate independent articles in major metropolitan newspapers, and of those 22 seperate independent sources, 7 of them are non-Fillipino... and sorry, but I cannot conceive how Los Angeles Times, Hollywood Reporter, Westwood-Century City Patch, Daily Bruin, South Florida Business Journal, or even the Saipan Tribune and Hong Kong Trade Development Council could ever be considered as "local" to a Phillipines business.
2. in addressing any sense that the sources are "minor" or from some little town, Cebu is a province in the Philippines, consisting of Cebu Island and 167 surrounding islands, and with a population in 2009 of some 3.5 million... and the newspapers Manila Bulletin, The Philippine Star, Philippine Daily Inquirer, Manila Times, and Cebu Daily News are THE newspapers major to and covering that entire region of 10 million people. Further, and not just a "town", Cebu City is the capital of the Cebu province, and is the "second most significant metropolitan centre in the Philippines". The city's population was nearing the one million mark back in 2007.
3. it would seem quite reasonable that the major Phillipine newspapers would cover those events and entities notable to the Phillipines. Again thank you. I'm not whining here... just trying to set a few facts on the table. Fixing the article was fun to do. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Korruski.Hillcountries (talk) 13:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:Need extensive clean-up and Wikification, but can be retain. Bill william compton (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep MichaelQSchmidt has once again found plenty of resources to prove something is notable. Dream Focus 21:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per exceptional improvements by MichaelQSchmidt.--Arxiloxos (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To paraphrase something that has often been attributed to Edmund Burke: All that is necessary for systemic bias to prosper is for good editors to do nothing. I was happy to have been able to help improve this one. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:18, 10 February 2011 (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.