Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pow Animation Studio

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. So Why 12:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pow Animation Studio

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

Prod removed with a non-policy related rationale (which can be seen on the article's talk page), and with no improvement. Virtually no in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to have help editing this page, rather then it being deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterJohnson123 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The issue is I've done searches on Google News, Google Newspapers, Google Books, Google Scholars, Highbeam, and JSTOR, and come up with virtually zero to show it passes notability. To show notability, you need to have in-depth sourcing from independent, reliable sources. You might be better served to ask to have this moved to draftspace, and then submit it through the AfC (Articles for Creation) process, as you find those type of sources. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And fyi, imdb is not a reliable source. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no independent, reliable sourcing. Has not produced any notable titles; just an unremarkable private company going about its business. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Subject has produced notable works. I'm currently working on finding more. Please give me some time. PeterJohnson123
Keep -- There's quite a lot of info on Bing about their films− I think they are a credible entity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.88.55.177 (talk) 23:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really there was no need to relist this--might as well have closed it as delete since a. there are no reliable sources proving notability, and b. there are no valid "keep" arguments that provide evidence and policy-based rationales. At any rate, I support deletion. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I still consider this a credible article because there are plenty of sources. I'm just a terrible writer. We need someone to write it properly. PeterJohnson123 (talk) 12:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- If this Amazon link is the only source, the writing is not the first problem. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to find more sources. Can you give me an example of good sources? PeterJohnson123 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - [1] Drmies (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2017 (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.