Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Interest Picture Productions

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The result was Nomination withdrawn. Notability established. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

National Interest Picture Productions[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:ORG - can't find any useful third party WP:RS anywhere. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there's a reference to the BFI in the article. J3Mrs (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is that a third-party reference? The majority of British film making studios will appear there. All that does is prove that NIPP existed. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a third-party reference because NIPP != BFI - that's what third party means. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (deliver) @ 22:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (post) @ 22:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (talkin' to me?) @ 22:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - obviously the article needs to be expanded, but there does seem to be notability here - in addition to the BFI ref, the company's films are held by multiple GLAMS and government departments (ex. IWM, National Archives, AWM) and have been used as sources by other publications (ex. Medical Humanities - subscription needed). There appear to be other sources available to aid expansion - for example, this newspaper article gives details of the company's liquidation. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- At present we have a bad stub, but we need an article. It looks as if it was a government film unit, largely engaged in producing public information films. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It was a lot more than a government film unit. I just expanded the article, with references. Take a look at it now. I'm sure the article could be expanded even more, but would require physical trips to libraries. Voceditenore (talk) 18:33, 30 May 2013 (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.