Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunny March

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 redirect to Benedict Cumberbatch#Production company. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sunny March[edit]

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

No indication why the subject is important to be included as an encyclopedic content. Kavdiamanju (talk) 03:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Check the page again. This deletion discussion was made while the page is being improved.Miller, Rebecca Augusta (talk) 04:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Kavdiamanju: I agree with Miller, Rebecca Augusta in that a topic's notability is not found per an article saying "this topic is notable because..." or through an article being sourced, but rather through the topic being covered in sources outeide of Wikipedia. WP:WIP, WP:DEADLINE This being nominated within mere minutes of being created and WHILE it was being actively edited is a concern. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now to founder Benedict Cumberbatch#Production company where his company is already spoken of and sourced. While almost there, it currently fails WP:CORP. Available sources do not dwell so much on the company itself, but the company in relationship to founder Cumberbatch.[1][2][3]et al. We can send readers to where it is spoken of in context to his career. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, delete or redirect--Ymblanter (talk) 06:37, 29 April 2015 (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.