Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clean Films
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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The result was Withdrawn. ZimZalaBim talk 02:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clean Films[edit]
- Clean Films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Company no longer exists (not even sure how much it really did exist beyond a local Utah community in the first place). Links provided are not to reliable sources from which to establish any notability. ZimZalaBim talk 21:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In light of sources for the lawsuit, I'm withdrawing the AfD nomination. --ZimZalaBim talk 02:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I had speedied this earlier as non-notable. Links have been added since, but they don't seem to show more than a sketchy notability many years past. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I know this is a weak arguement, but I know I read about the company and the lawsuit from some sort of reliable source. I'll try to look for them later but I'm confident that they exist.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's one to start [1]--Cube lurker (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And also reported in The Seatle Times [2] and FoxNews website [3]I feel there's strong notability increased by the fact that it no longer exists. The fact that it was shut down due to the DGA lawsuit waas widely reported.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried to do a bit of a clean-up and re-wrote the section on the lawsuit. I'm sure it could use more work, but I hope it looks better and shows notability.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And also reported in The Seatle Times [2] and FoxNews website [3]I feel there's strong notability increased by the fact that it no longer exists. The fact that it was shut down due to the DGA lawsuit waas widely reported.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's one to start [1]--Cube lurker (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Cube lurker. I remember actually reading about this, and it is noteworthy. JuJube (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per found sources. matt91486 (talk) 01:10, 6 March 2008 (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.