Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Yonder Films

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) 19:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Yonder Films

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

Page does not meet notability guidelines. No factual information to backup claims of notability. Citation listed does not attest to any fact of notability nor does it show any factual information for the page in question. Geejayen (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:48, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:48, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Was there a first AFD? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Yonder Films is a redlink. --doncram 01:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not think so. It was prod'ed once but not sent to AFD. --Ifnord (talk) 20:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed, I've gone ahead and moved this discussion to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Yonder Films. (It was originally located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Yonder Films (2nd nomination)). Mz7 (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A quick Google found a Guardian review of one of their movies from 2007. That movie isn't even listed in the article. It's a crappy stub now but I believe the company is notable. Ifnord (talk) 20:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can you please provide a link to the Guardian review? This review in the Guardian is the only one I can find discussing Hoodwinked (which is listed in the article). That Guardian article mentions the company once, labels the company as obscure and does not provide any details about the company. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You are correct, my reference was incorrect. I have removed it from the article, and removed my vote as well. --Ifnord (talk) 22:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 22:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and references provided fail WP:CORPDEPTH. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and HighKing, the one reference I thought proving subject notable proved to be completely unrelated. Ifnord (talk) 22:41, 22 August 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.