Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avion Films: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:04, 11 February 2022

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) 19:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Avion Films

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

Ineligible for PROD. In 2007, was PROD'd as non notable, and de-PROD'd by an IP who disagreed.

In my estimation, this company doesn't pass WP:GNG. Two refs are from Boards Mag, a defunct trade magazine that didn't even publish for a full year. The "honors" from the Clio Awards are minor, Bronze-level mentions along with a number of others. (see here) IMHO they confer no notability.

A Google search shows most Google hits are for a Greek production company with the same name, but that company doesn't seem notable either. The GHits for both are mostly name-drops in release info for films/work they contributed to, but no in-depth coverage of either iteration of Avion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no reason to keep this entry. The company is defunct, and no reasons are apparent in the stub of an article as to why the company is notable. There aren't even any specifics about their work, except an unsourced claim that once they may have been noticed by the Clio Awards for something. Scriblerian1 (talk) 07:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:06, 24 May 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.

@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 *'''Delete''' Fails [[WP:CORPDEPTH]] and GNG. [[User:HighKing|<font face="Courier" color="darkgreen"><b>-- HighKing</b></font>]]<sup>[[User_talk:HighKing|<font face="Courier" color="darkgblue">++  </font>]]</sup> 19:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 {{clear}}
-:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page. <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>
+:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>