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. Joyous! | Talk 02:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Skookum Films[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG with only a single possibly-reliable secondary source (parqmag.com), everything else is a directory entry or a WP:NEWSPRIMARY interview. I'm not seeing any press coverage. McGeddon (talk) 14:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hasty Delete could find nothing either and the links to yelp seem like desperation to find 2dry sources and the parqmag think was just promotional blurb, from the quick google translate that I did there was no opinion concerning the company stated in it...--Domdeparis (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Concerning the Parq Magazine, look at page 12. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeStevens1982 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost no coverage (52 hits), let alone WP:GNG-qualifying coverage, found via Google, giving the impression that despite the number of film festivals in which the company is asserted to have had entries, independent sources haven't given it attention. Largoplazo (talk) 16:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear advertising and it's clear those are the motivations here, especially since it's simply another young company hoping to seek establishing for its own business, and the sources themselves show this since they're clearly trivial. SwisterTwister talk 00:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I work at a film festival, which I won't name, where three of this company's films have been shown, I was surprised when I didn't find the company on Wikipedia, especially when I've found many other film production companies on Wikipedia with much less recognition, coverage and accomplishments. Therefore, I decided to create this page, if you really think the company shouldn't be part of Wikipedia, go ahead and delete it, but please do some extensive work on all the other film companies that are on Wikipedia, coherence should be a big part of Wikipedia, also, don't be so judgmental and offensive on your comments, making assumptions without valid sources is as wrong as creating articles without valid sources. MikeStevens1982|talk 02:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As I've been trying to convey, if this is a company with substantial "recognition, coverage and accomplishments", the problem is that it isn't apparent thus far and no one is turning up evidence of it for consideration here. Also, it is overwhelmingly unlikely that anyone is going to embark on an untargeted review of "all the other film companies" with articles here. Can you point to any specific ones that you believe don't meet the inclusion criteria? Largoplazo (talk) 04:13, 26 November 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.