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.-Wafulz (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kindred Moon Paranormal Society

[edit]

insufficient claims to notability: highly acclaimed TV show is cable access and ref. for it is one sentence long. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Added Kindred Moon Productions to this AfD. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Slash & Burn - Nothing even remotely notable to be found here. Delete with extreme prejudice. Gromlakh (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable. Kindred Moon Productions seems to be made only in support of this article. Prashanthns (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wow frist off Prashanthns the kindred moon productions page was created last October and the kindred moon paranormal page was created today. look at the dates and get your facts strait you hater —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorddeathbane (talk • contribs) 21:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Lord. If you read above, I have said that Kindred Moon Productions seems to be made only in support of this article. By this, I meant that notability of both this article and Kindred Moon Productions is in question, because, they are standing on each other rather than on their notability.Prashanthns (talk) 10:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

how are you saying there is no notoriety here Gromlakh when there are references and articles supporting that it is? have you been in multiple news articles and have produced your own movies or tv shows and have fans world wide? i bet not. i think you may be nothing more than someone trying to put people down saying they are nothing or that they arnt big enough to be listed here when you are nothing yourself and cant or wont do anything as big as kindred moon has done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorddeathbane (talk • contribs) 22:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment while general notability is a major issue, this one is quite well sourced, at least. Pundit|utter 22:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'm afraid. I removed a speedy tag from Kindred Moon Productions some time ago as it asserted some notability, but meant to get round to doing this. Evidently it dropped off my radar. Google turns up 49 hits, and Google News a solitary one. The nearest thing to significant reliable independent sourcing seems to be this local newspaper article, which points to its non-notability: "Kindred Moon Productions' films are available for rental at 9th Street Video and Blockbuster, are shown on Columbia's local access channel and are for sale on the company's Web site, kindredmoonproductions.com." I don't think this one source alone can sustain an article. I'm slightly less certain about Kindred Moon Paranormal Society, as it looks better sourced at first glance, but still inclined to say delete as once blogs, TV listings and duplicated references are discounted we're still left with at most two semi-reliable sources [1] [2] - Both are just local newspaper stories, and I don't think that this level of sourcing is enough to overcome the general lack of notability. 23 Google hits for KMPS or one on Google News doesn't point to much potential for improvement either. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle}
Delete as non-notable for both. The production company's films haven't even made it on IMDB; individual paranormal societies aren't notable on their own- making it on television may satisfy this (e.g. TAPS), but the television exposure in question won't suffice. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that Society article looks okay at first, but after digging, the sources are poor. Non-notable. King Pickle (talk) 02:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both: Wannabee ghostbusters which fail WP:ORG, WP:N and so on, with a nod to Balderdash's research. Also a WP:CANVASS violation [3], which was tried with a notable lack of success. I'm sure they'll be happy over on Myspace. RGTraynor 18:48, 1 May 2008 (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.