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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A little known production company which has very little history (founded in 2004). The article lists movies prior to that which are acually produced by Bigel/Mailer Films. Note that each of these almost unquestionnably falls in the B-movie class and none of them have any independent notability. Furthermore, the article was created by Jordanbigel (talk · contribs) which raises suspicion of vanity. As a company I think it's safe to say it fails WP:CORP and the google test returns 306 hits, although only 93 unique hits which is not a whole lot for a Hollywood based production company. Pascal.Tesson 06:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What can I say? The production company is new but in the film industry the banner you work under is less important then the credits you have to your name. In this case Daniel has produced 10 full length feature films and has just become a voting member of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (a fact which I do intend to add to the article). The fact that I am related to Daniel should in no way bear on the decision to remove the article.

If the requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia rests on some evaluation of the quality of the films then I would refer to Daniel's most recent release, the Kevin Bacon film Loverboy which is also Mr. Bacon's directorial debut. This film as well as several other films produced by Daniel Bigel already have entries in Wikipedia. For example Harvard Man, Empire and Black and White (1999 film) are all included in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordanbigel (talk • contribs)

Comment The requirements are not really on the quality of the films although that would not hurt. Of course a production company with a long history of films would be notable enough but in the case such as this one where the company is very young (even including the Bigel/Mailer era) then the quality, impact and success of the movies is important. Loverboy has gotten mostly bad reviews [1] and has been a commercial flop. The same can be said of Empire [2] and Harvard man [3] (which went essentially straight to DVD).

As for the fact that you are related to Daniel Bigel, it in fact does matter. Please refer to WP:VAIN for a detailed explanation. Pascal.Tesson 07:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as vanity. They only have four employees. Definitely not notable. If this can be verified with reliable sources, I'll change my mind. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 07:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then you might as well change your vote right now. The company undeniably exists and even IMDb should have it somewhere (or maybe only Bigel/Mailer). The google search I posted in the nomination will give you decent sources. Pascal.Tesson 07:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Removed that part - I seem to be blind this evening. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 08:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:CORP for lacking multiple non-trivial articles by third parties. Admitted WP:VAIN, and article therefore looks to be Original Research. Tychocat 10:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Daniel Bigel has not just become a voting member of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences as stated above. He is not on the list of persons invited to membership in 2004 [4], 2005 [5], or 2006 [6]. --Metropolitan90 15:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The company is obviously notable as a merger of two other significant companies, their combined catalogue includes movies we have on Wikipedia. Its almost as if you disavow AOL/Time Warner after the merger, before their first earnings quarter, as a company that hasnt made anything. Or if George Lucas left his current company to make another and it was AfD'd for not having any movies made yet. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A smattering of news items on variety.com which sound part crystal ball, part trade wire pickups. 3 films annually with budgets of $10-25m doesn't instill confidence either. Maybe once they get a big splash. I have no idea where zer0faults comes from, it seems like Bigel went off on his own with the company. As for the George Lucas comparison, T&E:FEQ. ~ trialsanderrors 22:27, 4 August 2006 (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.