Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rabbit Film Company

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 of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 00:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rabbit Film Company

Delete this outdated account of some high school students' hobby - DavidWBrooks 02:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Its already in 2 encyclopedias already: FreeDictionary and Nationmaster. Doesn't seem to have any other assertions to notoriety though, other than the fact that it exists. Google returns only 40 hits. More research needed before a decision. And nominator is wrong, its not outdated - founded 2004, last production September 2005. Also not high school students. DOB 1985 makes them 20. Could very well be legit. Zordrac 04:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Both of those encyclopedias are Wikimirrors echoing our content so it is not surprising that this article is listed there nor does it act as verifiability for our purposes. Capitalistroadster 09:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I didn't know that. Anyway I am not voting at this stage, until I know more. Always good to learn more though. Zordrac 17:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. per nom. (Notorious4life 05:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC))
• Delete - seems like advertising to me, but is there an independent source discussing the enterprise? They need to build up some notoriety first before meriting such an article. B.Wind 10:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Vanity/fantasy/hobby testimonial. I had a couple of middle school students proclaim that they had formed a corporation, too. Unverified, otiose, and non-encyclopedic, and our mirrors are no doubt spreading it thick over the e-world. Geogre 16:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that their previous efforts have been reverted (their supposed garage band). Geogre 16:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Can you link to this please? Zordrac 17:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• • Actually, I was wrong: all the authors of Rabbit Film Company have only contributed to that article, with no other contributions whatsoever. I had thought that they had attempted to make Visions of Cody refer to their garage band. They hadn't. Geogre 18:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this too. I haven't found anything independently mentioning anything notable.  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 21:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep It seems to me that the article's only problem is a Point of View issue, because of some of the writing in the main body paragraph being a bit too 'positively' biased. This however, according to Wiki rules, is not a problem that requires deletion. Moreover, if the group was advertising with wiki then we would find many links through search engines pointing to the wiki page; however we do not, and as stated previously the page has only had 40 hits. This to me does not represent an active attempt on the part of the film persons, (or whomever created the Rabbit Film Company article), to actively advertise the wiki article. Additionally, I also believe wikipedia in particular is supposed to be encompassing enough for even potential 'upstart' companies. Also, if the company truly had notieriety, then we wouldn't need Wikipedia to inform persons about that which they already know. Those are just my thoughts on the matter. So, in summary, this is all why I believe that the page, not breaking any of the cardinal rules, should stand relatively as is, except with a comment or a message somehow to fix the main paragraph bias.--Millermz 02:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

It is very much a suprise to me that Wikipedia is supposed to be "encompassing enough for even potential 'upstart' companies". My understanding is that this is compendium of notable subjects, not a listing of two-guys-and-dog companies... and then, "Also, if the company truly had notieriety, then we wouldn't need Wikipedia to inform persons about that which they already know." I THINK you're saying that Wikipedia should NOT have articles on, say, IBM, because people already know about IBM? I don't think most users will agree... Herostratus 06:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Forty Google hits says this company is not notable. Denni ☯ 04:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Their website is on MySpace, for $DEITY's sake. — Haeleth Talk 13:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Excellent article, well organized, well written, illustrated. Not notable. I hope the editors turn their skills to some other subjects. Herostratus 06:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

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.