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) Mhhossein (talk) 05:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Films

[edit]

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

My own searches have simply found expected passing mentions but no actual substantial coverage, there's no inherited notability from their clients and I have found nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 21:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:CORP and improve this sad stub article about a company which has won multiple industry awards (yes, some minor),[1][2] as diligent searches find the accompanying media coverage due to those awards.[3][4][5][6] Tone and sourcing of an arguably notable topic is a matter for editorial attention, not deletion. As with similar articles, it is expected that sources would write about the product of a production/distribution company. Per guideline: "'A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." My emboldening as WP:SUBSTANTIAL is not a requirement of WP:SIGCOV (intentional redlink to underscore that it is not a mandate). Multiple sources are available. Time to address issues. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 17:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:46, 20 July 2016 (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.