Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halestorm Entertainment

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 keep. A Train^talk 07:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Halestorm Entertainment

Halestorm Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH, as per source searches, which are providing passing mentions and primary sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete Per WP:NCORP guidelines. No inherit notability based on researching the subject. Comatmebro (talk) 03:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep The article certainly needs citations, but the company's portfolio includes 10 bluelinked films. And here's an example of an independent secondary source (newspaper article about the company). ~Awilley (talk) 04:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete -- notability is not inherited from the notable movies; there's got to be separate notability, which the article does not provide. I'm unable to locate sources to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:04, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: Does this NYTimes article meet the criteria? How about Washington Post? ~Awilley (talk) 05:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the article meets WP:CORPDEPTH requirements. It's a brief piece which reads like a human interste story, highlights the executives hopes and aspirations ("Now Hunter and Hale are hoping to entertain non-Mormons as well") and is based on an interview with them:

• "This actor really goes off," he said, laughing, "and everyone's probably thinking: Oh, what's HaleStorm doing? They've gone to the dark side! I have to apologize all day long."

Etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:08, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• Keep Awilley has demonstrated broad coverage of the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep per Awilley' sources. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Weak keep -- Change to "keep", upon further consideration: borderline, but has potential; produced notable films and is important in its niche. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:24, 31 October 2017 (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.