Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Content Partners

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. Missvain (talk) 04:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Content Partners

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No indication of being notable. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:DEL14, WP:DEL4 scope_creep^Talk 07:52, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe that footnote 1 is in depth, as is the Wall Street Journal article (footnote 2), as is the CNBC article (footnote 3), as is the USA Today article (footnote 4), the Fortune Magazine article (footnote 8), and that coverage of their buying other companies comes in in-depth articles ranging from the Los Angeles Times to the New York Times. A portion of the sources, yes, talk about things that could be considered run of the mill, like taking on the rights to CSI, though I would argue these are not simple notices. Beyond that though, things like the WSJ piece and the USA Today piece are, I think, pretty clear indicators of notability. Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lets look at the references:
Ref 1: [1] For now, Kram, who is CEO of Content Partners, and Blume, who is CFO and chief operations officer, are not worried. “Our business is as busy as ever,” Kram says. “I think there will always be room for participants on the film side Fails WP:ORGIND as interview style article.
Ref 2 [2] Paywall.
Ref 3 Investing in Hollywood’s brightest stars This is a press-release: [3]. Fails WP:SPIP and WP:SIRS. Dependent.
Ref 4 [4] We've seen a large increase in inquiries in the last month or so" as the strike deadline loomed, says CEO Steven Kram. "Most of the inquiries we're receiving now are from writer-producers. This is an interview with the CEO of the company. Fails WP:ORGIND.
Ref 5 [5] Kram told The Hollywood Reporter in 2007. 'We felt if we could provide an opportunity for diversification to participant holders, it would be warmly welcomed." Routine announcement. Fails WP:ORGIND.
Ref 6 [6] Profile page. Fails WP:SIRS
Ref 7 [7] Announcement of partnership. The SPT team is among the best in the business and the ideal partner to handle international distribution of Revolution’s extensive catalog in the continually shifting global digital media landscape,” Revolution CEO Vince Totino said Thursday in a statement Fails WP:ORGIND.
Ref 8 Meet Content Partners: The investors who bought CSI Paywalled, but looks like a profile. Dependent source. Fails WP:SIRS
Ref 9 [8] “This proves the value of liquidity in an uncertain economic environment,” Mr. Kram added. He spoke recently by telephone of his company’s ability to use resources from its investors and lenders to buy an asset of the kind that is usually owned by large media companies. Fails WP:ORGIND.
Ref 10 [9] “This represents an acquisition of a significant number of A-plus titles and A-plus management,” Kram said. “We believe there’s continued strong growth in the world of broadband, and so demand will continue to accelerate.” Another interview style report. Fails WP:ORGIND.

I can't access all the entries in the list as two are paywalled, but it is a brand new company, a very small private company with 7 people working for it. How can it be notable? All the references are routine announcements, churnalism and paid press-releases. There is news on it, because it is brand new company. No evidence has been presented as to why it is notable, and a paid editor has appeared to defend it. WP:NCORP, WP:DEL14, WP:DEL4 scope_creep^Talk 15:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 04:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the in-depth review of references by scope_creep, none of the references meets the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough sourcing to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:42, 20 December 2020 (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.