Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tri-vanguard Pictures

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. Der yck C. 22:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tri-vanguard Pictures

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

This movie company lacks substantial RS coverage. Tagged for lack of refs since 2006 (pretty amazing ... ). Epeefleche (talk) 06:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Very low ghits, all of which are business directories and not even a baseline mention in IMDb so looking for their only mentioned film would have been pointless. Survived only by virtue of obscurity, too bad there's no speedy criteria which fits for it. tutterMouse (talk) 15:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Switching my !vote to Speedy delete, the caffeine hasn't kicked in yet so missed that it's a good A7 candidate and tagged as so. tutterMouse (talk) 15:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I denied the A7 speedy per '"criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines", as the article makes an assertion of notability through its "recent release". The issues of notability and sourcing will be discussed here at AFD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete While the company exists,[1] lack of coverage fails WP:GNG and thus WP:CORP. Note: The documentary film Hearts of Gold does exist[2] and actually was screened some 12 years ago,[3] and apparently did win an award,[4] but that's the film... and not reflective on its distributor. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Coverage exists about their works [5], but not finding significant coverage in reliable sources about the company itself. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:28, 14 January 2012 (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.