Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blatant Films Inc. (2nd nomination)

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. Cirt (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant Films Inc.

As per the last AfD, there are not significant third party sources to establish notability, and the only real source that does exist appears to be a local-only award. I'm relisting this to generate the discussion the last didn't create. — Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 23:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I can't find any substantial coverage in reliable sources. The awards they've received seem fairly minor and local. ~ mazca ^t/c 23:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added additional, reputable 3rd party sources now. Please remove this page from the Articles for deletion category. --Coldman42 (talk) 00:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not how it works, Coldman42. Delete, per nom. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Perhaps the sources are reliable, but there's no significant coverage. Google Maps is a good example — I trust it unless I see otherwise, but it's not a particularly good guide to anything except geography. [With the exception of the local St. Albert Gazette, none of the sources even mention Blatant Films. Nyttend (talk) 14:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is a lack of significant coverage to indicate notability. The only coverage found is from the St. Albert Gazette which is a community paper published two times a week. The awards is relatively minor being provincial in scope. -- Whpq (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2009 (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.