Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dutch FilmWorks

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch FilmWorks

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

This unsourced article, dating from 2008, is about an organisation which does not appear to fulfull WP:ORG. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Such a great number of available sources[1] world seem indicative of this Dutch company meeting WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Many are in the Dutch language understandably, but enough are in English. Send it to WP:Cleanup. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Company is notable, but current page needs expansion. TwoRiversWC (talk) 10:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ No notability indicated in the article, and the Dutch article (of which this appears to be a translation - interestingly containing the same typo 'knowlegde' (now corrected in both)) - is no better. In fact, it even lacks the link to the company site. How many of the 'available sources' would in fact give the coverage (and depth) required? Peridon (talk) 12:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep Peridon (talk) 14:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Company might be notable but no proof is offered in 'article'. No news on this company in Google News archives since 2008, one 2010 mention in Google News. No sources cited for all asserted distribution deals. 'No refs' notice dates to May 2008. While it might be possible, no editor has seen fit to try to source this article and to try to prove its notability in the intervening 2+ years. Shearonink (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. So it sat unimproved for two years. I only just heard about it myself when it was brought to this AFD. Expansion and sourcing has begun, but help from any Dutch-reading Wikipedian would be greatly appreciated. WP:NOEFFORT is a concern that can be addressed with just a little help... and WP:UNKNOWNHERE does not mean it lacks notability THERE. And to User:Shearonink... it is in Google archives before 2008... even as far back as Jun 18, 2000.[2] And to source a distribution deal, all one need do is search for "Dutch Filmworks" + "Film name"... not at all impossible, just will take some work. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find Notability, that's great. I just didn't see it at this first pass and don't have the time to do loads of research right now. I'll be glad to be proven wrong. Shearonink (talk) 01:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no question of notability after the list of independent news sources posted by User:MichaelQSchmidt above. This needed expand and cleanup not deletion. I have expanded it. -84user (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments and efforts by User:MichaelQSchmidt.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2010 (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.