Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howling Wolf 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 delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Howling Wolf Productions

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

Article that was previously speedied three times in the past two months for being a completely unsourced advertisement for the company instead of a properly neutral encyclopedia article; on its fourth recreation it was prodded instead, and the prod tag was removed yesterday on the basis of purported sourcing improvements to the article. However, the article is still relying entirely on primary sources and IMDb for "referencing", with not a single reliable source in the bunch, so the company's basic notability has still not been demonstrated in any way. As always, I'm willing to withdraw this if the sourcing can be brought up to scratch, but the company is not entitled to keep this version of an article about it. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No proof of notability, lack of reliable sources. Bali88 (talk) 23:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN company.reddogsix (talk) 01:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. No evidence of notability. Pburka (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete per failing WP:COMPANY. If the author(s) show understanding of WP:N and the issues with WP:COI, I'd consider a return to sender. Simply put, while company does exist, and does receive bare mention-in-passing in reliable sources,[1][2] BUT bare mentions are all that can be found. As production company behind 7 films... 1 winner, 2 non-winners, and 4 in post-production... the awards of Guest House for the work of the cast and crew, does not indicate a notability for the company itself. Allow undeletion/recreation only when the company itself receives coverage AS a company. IF there were ever to be an article on founder Aaron Wolf, it might be mentioned there. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:59, 28 April 2014 (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.