Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camelot Films

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Camelot Films

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

Prod removed by creator without comment. I don't believe that this company meets GNG. Yes, they have made a number of films but I can't find reliable sources about the company. No google or JSTOR hits Gbawden (talk) 12:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - they may have made a few films (none of which I think can be described as notable), but they themselves have no widespread coverage in reliable sources, and cannot be deemed notable by Wikipedian standards. WalkingOnTheB (talk) 12:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy, A7. Bazj (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing WP:CORP... but not a speedy A7 Bazj... as the assertion of notability (unfounded) is through its production of films. If the company ever gains notability, the article can be returned. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MichaelQSchmidt The threshold is a credible claim of significance or importance. There was nothing in the article I saw that approached that level. All the generic terms are linked, but none of the films or people. No sources. There's nothing credible about it. It's an A7. Bazj (talk) 08:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bazj: no... CSD is a different standard than is WP:N, and an assertion does not require being sourced (different standard)... as it is simply a reasonable assertion being made through the (verifiable) claim of being a production company that has produced some films. NOT an A7... but non-notable, yes. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not notable as per WP:CORP, no coverage in reliable sources. Esquivalience ^t 23:55, 13 April 2015 (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.