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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden Empire Film Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Deceptively written promotion from non notable company. Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Current sourcing does not go beyond mentions, with some sources not even mentioning them. The awards listed were not won by this company. A search found nothing good for notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the company has two films which pass the threshold for notability - Meet the Blacks and Supremacy (film). They had theatrical release and reviews. Not good reviews, and not much revenue, but they did show to paying customers in commercial theaters. But the company itself would fail WP:CORP. The company should get a brief mention in the film articles, but there's not enough for a standalone article. See also Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Deon_Taylor John Nagle (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - there's an abundance of references on the entry itself. Googling shows other coverage, even if the first page is Facebook and social media results. Asdfsadfsadfsadfsad (talk) 00:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HiAsdf etc, what other accounts have you edited with, which ones are blocked? Which accounts edits that I have noticed have led to your current stalking of me? duffbeerforme (talk) 04:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - They've earned awards made notable work, good or not. The company can meet WP:CORP, the solution here is expansion, not deletion. South Nashua (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How can they meet WP:CORP? Expansion with what? duffbeerforme (talk) 04:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They've made a few things with a few notable actors, and it seems like there are more to come. There's probably also more information regarding the current work they've done. South Nashua (talk) 15:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as entirely trivial and unconvincing, nothing amounting to genuine independent notability and substance, simply a basis of awards is not an automatic acceptance of notability, and then there's the matter of there being no automatic inherited notability; there's simply nothing its own genuinely convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The features and people associated with them may/do merit articles, but the company itself? No. --Calton | Talk 23:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – more WP:ARTSPAM by WP:COI accounts in spite of our policies on what Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vehicle for promotion. Citobun (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The company's works might be notable, but the sources only mention the company itself in passing. 1292simon (talk) 23:51, 4 January 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.