Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ENVY Post Production

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. Sandstein 06:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ENVY Post Production

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

Not notable. No broad coverage found on the internet. Looks a bit like an advertisement. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 23:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of media coverage. Nothing panned out on Google and Yahoo, except for a BusinessWeek address for ENVY Post Production. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable television company (one of the most notable of its kind in the UK), as indicated by significant coverage in nationally distributed trade publications—see Televisual, Broadcast, et al. Extraordinary Machine (talk) 23:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm seeing nothing reliable in google. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

relisting comment: I have asked extraordinary Machine to expand on his comment as there is a good faith assertion of sourcing that might not be available on-line. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as is. Unless significant sources appear on the page, this doesn't meet WP:COMPANY or GNG. Televisual listing is not enough by itself and Broadcast awards cite doesn't support the claim made in pagespace. Pending additional sources, delete. BusterD (talk) 11:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a borderline case. I see > 10K hits on Google, but they all seem to be press releases, or blogs, or minor trade publications. I don't doubt that the company is very important in the UK film/television industry, but WP:Company requires more significant mention by sources independent of the company itself ... and I'm not seeing such sources. --Noleander (talk) 17:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Small company, no refs, non notable. Szzuk (talk) 19:15, 2 August 2011 (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.