Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advent Film Group

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 -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advent Film Group

Advent Film Group (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete Blatant advertisement. Nn film company that's only produced press releases. 0 finished films, and doubtful the ones planned would be notable. CSD removed by article creator. Only ref listed is companies website. Horrorshowj 22:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Article creator should not have removed the speedy deletion template. I've restored the template. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree he shouldn't have removed the CSD. However, due to his edits it no longer qualified for "no context". I switched it back to afd, since it now has some theoretical asserts notability. Still fails WP:N. Horrorshowj 23:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Well, every project is "in development" or "in production", so far there have been no releases. Yngvar 23:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Wheres the notability? - Rjd0060 00:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment:You cannot delete an article about a valid company due to the fact that they just started. They have actually released a film and I'm finding sources for more information to improve the article. As far as "Blatant Advertisement," this is no more a blatant Advertisement than Sony, Disney, Yari Film Group, etc. The only difference is the age of the company. Finally, the article doesn't fail notability because take a look at what wikipedia says is notable. "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I am providing more links to outside sources separate from the company. Thanks for your help guys. I hope this fixes your problems with the article.CleverOaf —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The five new sources that have been added include four articles written by George Escobar, the founder of this company. They aren't independent of the subject. Crazysuit 01:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Actually, if you look at the seven sources used in the article. only 2 of them are from the source, Advent film group. Thus, 5 of sources are actually NOT connected to George Escobar or AFG in any way. CleverOaf
  • The wdcmedia.com article clearly says By George Escobar, WDC Guest Writer. Also, the articles in christiannewswire.com and earnedmedia.org are exact copies of the wdcmedia.com press release, so of course they are also written by George Escobar. Crazysuit 02:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm sorry, I stand corrected. The other articles are not affiliated. CleverOaf

Other article you mean. The only one that doesn't have Escobar on the byline appears to have been written from press releases of the two groups involved . Horrorshowj 02:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Question: I'm wondering, is there a reason why you all so vehemontly want Advent Film Group off of Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CleverOaf (talk • contribs) 02:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Advent Film Group is a company that is rather new, thus they have only filmed one movie so far. They do have a movie scheduled for release, and it is going to be released. I personally know people who worked on filming the movie this summer. This article is very deserved, and AFG is just as notable as any small film group on it's way to being a big name. Please do not let this very informative article be deleted.71.199.18.72 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 02:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC) — 71.199.18.72 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment: I would like to add that the arguments you are bringing up against the advent film group article are really insignificant if you consider that hundreds of other articles on wikipedia are LESS documented than this article, Just take a look at a sample of legitimate articles on Wikipedia right now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yari_Film_Group

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burton_Snowboards

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Film_Group_Corporation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patagonik_Film_Group

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnipeg_Film_Group

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_group_films

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fujian_Radio_Film_and_TV_Group

If you are going to argue for the deletion of this article, I request that you also ask for the deletion of those articles, unless you are only using these arguments as an excuse to get rid of this article for other reasons, such as its religious nature. If that is the case, I will be taking this issue to the administrators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CleverOaf (talk • contribs) 02:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The first 3 film groups have released multiple films with articles on Wikipedia. They may need better documentation, but they have notability. Winnipeg Film article needs a lot of work but Gnews [1] makes it pretty obvious they can meet significant coverage with articles over a 15 year span. PRODded Spanish Group because, like Advent, they've done nothing notable and have the lack of documentation to prove it. Burton Snowboards is the leading company in their fields and has been the subject of articles in 2 different, nationally distributed magazines that are also WP:RS. The relevance of your argument is what exactly? Horrorshowj 03:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. shoy 03:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment:Considering this article was just written, it is amazing how quickly it's been nominated for deletion. The article itself is only in stub format and hasn't even had a chance to be properly developed and sourced yet. The company itself is most certainly a notable startup film company and is at least as deserving of its own article as any of the other similar companies already linked above. I would say the apparent animosity toward this articles is due to religious and political bias not any actual lack of notability, and I ask the administrators to try to make a fair call on this and give the article a chance.--DebateLord 03:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
• Generally, claiming religious bias without having any backup for it is a bad idea in any discussion, let alone a deletion discussion. The commenters above all seem to be basing their viewpoints on Wikipedia rules and guidelines. Personally, I feel this should be a delete as the company does not appear to meet any of the requirements in the corporation notability guidelines at this point, especially as I only found one independent report regarding the company. If they receive further coverage in reliable sources, then the discussion could be revisited at that time. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Tony Fox regarding notability of organizations and companies for this film group. The sources that have been added to the article do not establish notability for this group, as they are not objective and independent sources that provide significant coverage about it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Updated and Notable After Mr. Fox's comment, I have completely updated the sources and there are now four sources that are not from Advent Film Group or George Escobar. These establish notability under wikipedia's requirements. CleverOaf 17:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, sorry I don't agree. Stifle (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • For clarification, I mean that the sources are not reliable. I am also of the opinion that the group is insufficiently notable. Stifle (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
    • how are the sources not reliable? I've looked at that article and the sources are fine according to that article. And, once again, why are you of the opinion that it is not notable, because it isn't famous yet? which by the way is NOT the same thing as notability. CleverOaf 18:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I checked all the references and they do not establish notability in my view. The link to The Internet Movie Database does contain only one link to a film that had status "in post production" since August. The references need to be cleaned of the Escobar articles. The remaining references are web articles mainly about the plans of the Advent Film Group for the future. This in my eyes is not enough to establish notability for a corporation. There are no products at the moment, only plans. The article may be recreated after the corporation created a name with its products. Neozoon 23:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete; no actually finished movie; no sources to establish notability; no article. — Coren ^(talk) 00:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Actually, Advent Film Group does have a finished production that is on sale now.

If you look at their website (http://www.adventfilmgroup.com/Projects.html) you can see that "Come What May" has been shot and is in post-production but not yet released. The documentary, Soli Deo Gloria, however, has already been completed (actually is in its second edition) and is being sold both by independent retailers (http://www.speechsupplies.com/Soli_Deo_Gloria_p/300.htm). DareToDebate 01:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete I'd like to keep the article but can't justify it. This is a startup company with an unusual approach to creating movies. If it works out, and the data can be independently verified, it will be a notable company. If it doesn't, it still might end up like Thief in the Night.jonathon 06:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 09:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as article reads like a PR exercise.--Gavin Collins 09:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Notahle someday real soon isn't notable now. Vgranucci 23:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing notable right now. When the movie is released and if other independent sources can support notability, then it would work for an article. Not yet, though. Mike6271 20:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep per WP:HEY with better sourcing. Bearian 23:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as spam and self-promotion. Biruitorul 03:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

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.