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. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cupsogue Pictures[edit]

Cupsogue Pictures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

No real claim to notability. No significant coverage in independent sources. Claims of having produced Outlaw (2007 film) appear not to be supported by independent sources and is dubious. imdb list the production companies as Ingenious Film Partners and Vertigo Films and lists Gene Fallaize as one of 38 executive producers and the dvd credits may list 989 executive producers. Page was made by the publicist for Cupsogue Pictures. Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having discussed this with the company, we feel we have supplied enough material to prove notability. If the page is to be deleted, then so be it, but it will surely be recreated within the coming months due to the large amount of large-scale upcoming productions in productions that will be of much public interest. In regards to crediting, all productions produced by Gene Fallaize are in association with Cupsogue Pictures. One film does not prove or disprove eligibility. I would ask why, when you feel it is appropriate, that you look to IMDb for confirmation, when at other times you consider IMDb a 'non-trustworthy source'? If you are at all aware of the IMDb, you will know that they carefully check and verify every credit on their database directly with industry records, thus all credits that are published on the site have all been pre-verified. To reject any pre-validated credits by the IMDb for inclusion in Wikipedia is rather ignorant of the work made by them to validate the credits in the first place. As we have said though, if the page is to be deleted, then we respect your decision, and look forward to seeing the new page on there in the coming months. Grahampitt —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete Fails the primary notability criterion for commercial organizations. The article can be recreated if/when multiple reliable sources can be found that deal with the company as the primary topic (not just mentioning it in passing). User:Grahampitt, we appreciate your willingness to work with us to improve wikipedia and this article; you may want to review wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines to avoid any difficulties with other wiki editors. Thanks, Baileypalblue (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can find directory entries and blog mentions but no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above concerns with notability and verification. Also note the apparant conflict of interest. Themfromspace (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Poor sourcing, inadequate to show notability. Although WP:COI editing is not always fatal to the reputation of an article, when we notice that the article may have been created by someone from the company, we immediately need to get real information from elsewhere so that we know what to believe. EdJohnston (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Non-notable company. Schuym1 (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per others. No evidence of notability. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 00:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are two possibilities:

1. The company is lying and they've fabricated everything in IMDB (which is untrustworthy anyway) just so they could get in Wikipedia. Or ...
2. It's true.

IMBD lists 6 movies for the company, Gene Fallaize as producer of 9 movies (and as co-executive producer on Outlaw). That's notable enough for me and, if you think it's true, I don't see why you would say the company isn't notable. Personally, I think a vote to Delete for poor sourcing shouldn't be allowed -- poor sourcing has no bearing on actual notability. A quick search turns up more independent confirmations (http://www.janinegateland.com/page3.htm, http://www.weblo.com/celebrity/available/Gene_Fallaize/685930/) that the company isn't lying. Mark the article as needing work, even needing significant work, but the company and, I think, the director are notable. I do think the COI edits by the Cupsogue publicist(?) were inadvisable (and there are a lot of people who don't understand Wikipedia), but that has no bearing on whether the company and the director are notable. RoyLeban (talk) 05:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about Outlaw (2007 film)? The Cupsogue Pictures article claims that the firm produced it, but no reliable source can be found to support that. The mention of blogs in your comment is not persuasive, since they are traditionally not considered reliable here. Sourcing is important because we don't believe claims that can't be reliably attested. Otherwise people could just boast of their accomplishments and we'd have to accept their word for it. EdJohnston (talk) 06:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make it clear that I don't want to be a defender of Cupsogue. I'd never heard of them until a couple of weeks ago, when I ran across them. But, I hate to see things excluded/deleted because a tiny subset of people on Wikipedia don't know anything about the subject (and I'm in that tiny subset in this case). Moving on... if IMDB isn't reliable then neither is Wikipedia. You might want to read this when pointing at WP:RS. WP:Reliable source examples makes it clear that parts of IMDB are reliable (screenwriters' credits) while other parts (trivia) are not. Where do producer credits fall? Lists of movies? Directors and actors and actresses? I don't know.

The question here is notability, not accuracy. I find it hard to believe that this company is lying and that all these other people are lying. If you believe they are lying, then you should vote Delete. If you believe they are telling the truth, you should vote Keep and make sure the "unsourced" comment in the article stays until its fixed. If the article stays, it's clear it needs work.

I happen to know John Langdon, who is listed as the ambigammist for Monkeyshine (see http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1332027/, http://www.monkeyshinemovie.com) and I could contact him for info, but that would be considered original research and most likely ignored, so I have hesitated doing that. RoyLeban (talk) 09:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on what information you get bac, it isn't necessarily original research. If the answer is "Yeah, Variety published an article on that back in Decemeber. Here's the URL", then it's perfectly fine. As for the notability, the North American entertainment industry is heavily covered, so for a current company, the complete lack of any sourcing to be found beyond directory entries is quite indicative of nobody covering the subject as opposed to sources being available but not yet found. -- Whpq (talk) 13:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The claim 'this must be true, otherwise they would be lying,' goes flatly against our WP:Verifiability policy. We expect to see the proof. EdJohnston (talk) 15:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You misquote me, but, in any event, I respectfully disagree. This is about whether the article should exist, not what is in it. If the company is notable but we have no information that can be verified, we could have an empty page saying the company exists and nothing else (not that I expect that to be the case). RoyLeban (talk) 20:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have the order backwards. (1) Reliable sources are found, saying that the company is important, (2) editors judge that the sources prove notability, (3) the article is kept. The only case where (1) is ever skipped during AfD is where preliminary Google searches or library searches establish that real sources will be easy to find. You'll forgive us for being skeptical whether real sources will ever be found in this case. EdJohnston (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2009 (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.