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 delete. Discounting the very obvious votestacking (whether it's socking or meatpuppetry is irrelevant) this comes out to delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC) reply

MovieJamStudios

MovieJamStudios (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet WP:ORG. Article is also poorly written and sounds more like an advertisement than a encyclopedia article. A7 and G11 speedy's have been removed by various people. Karl 334 Talk- -Contribs 18:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: I was skeptical when I saw a company formed by five 15 year olds, but the references to articles in Bayerischer Rundfunk and Münchner Merkur satisfy GNG. — teb728 t c 19:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC) On second thought, strip back and convert to an article about their film Olympia 72. It is the film which is notable—not the studio. reply

KEEP : Hi, my name is Alexander Spöri, I'm one of the founders of "MovieJam Studios. I don't see a problem with the article, is there one? So in case there is one, it would change the mistake or rewrite the paragraph. It was a lot of work to right it. Because we're speaking all german. So please keep calm. Would be nice, if you won't delete it! 91.63.238.198 ( talk) 19:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC) 91.63.238.198 ( talk) 19:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC) — 91.63.238.198 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

@ Aspoeri2001: The main issue here is whether your studio is important enough for an article in an encyclopedia. Most companies are not that important, and as you know, your article was speedily deleted from German Wikipedia for just that reason. Another issue is that the article is not written from the neutral point of view which an encyclopedia requires. We are not asking you to rewrite it—indeed because of your conflict of interest on the subject you are strongly discouraged from creating and editing the article at all. — teb728 t c 22:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep: Just added all citations 2003:62:4328:A200:5DBD:1FE1:68C:33BC ( talk) 06:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC) — 2003:62:4328:A200:5DBD:1FE1:68C:33BC ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. sst✈ (discuss) 08:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. sst✈ (discuss) 08:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst✈ (discuss) 08:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:CORP and conflict of interest concerns. LibStar ( talk) 14:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep : : I think the article is ordinary at this particular time, could stay in my opinion 84.168.71.153 ( talk) 11:49 am, Today (UTC−7)

— 84.168.71.153 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

hilarious being ordinary is not a criterion for notability. LibStar ( talk) 13:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep : : That's right @84.168.71.153, could stay now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspoeri2001 ( talk • contribs) 11:51 am, Today (UTC−7) Aspoeri2001 ( talk) 11:59 am, Today (UTC−7)
  • Delete for now as the not even one year old age and the current list of sources is starters enough to show this company is not yet solidly notable. SwisterTwister talk 00:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep is okay now, it's on Google Business as well. 84.168.92.66 ( talk) 12:43, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

— 84.168.92.66 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

being ok or on google business is not a criteria for notability. LibStar ( talk) 13:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep it's on in Google Business listed now, so I think there are enough sources and citations. 8200882008a ( talk) 12:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

— 8200882008a ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@ 8200882008a: You reversed my !vote above: That is not acceptable. I have reverted your vandalism. — teb728 t c 13:37, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep are there enough sources etc. now? I think it does satisfy. Aspoeri2001 ( talk) 13:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
you cannot !vote twice and please stop swarming this page with multiple votes. LibStar ( talk) 13:36, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment it's very obvious all the new accounts voting here are all the same person or affiliated with the company. LibStar ( talk) 13:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment the Münchner Merkur, Bayerischer Rundfunk, Telefonica with the project Think Big, as well as 02 (Communications company), Rodney Sewell, Sebastian Wild, Google, Mathäser (Munich's most famous cinema), IMDb have approved this company and confirmed it on their websites, have written articles (everything is in the referneces on MovieJamStudios, as well as Google Business and Google News had approved everything. We could change the tone in the article, according to his subject, without Alexander Spöri, but I don't see your points and the problemes, I think it's fine? 84.168.92.66 ( talk) 13:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply


The only refs that are worth anything are the BR and the Merkur. Facebook is not a reliable source. The think-big.org, muenchen72.com, and moviejam.de were written by you; so they are worthless for showing notability. And the sewell.de doesn’t even mention you. — teb728 t c 14:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Think-Big.org is a german site, written by Telefonica and 02. They were supporting us with Sponsoring and money, and we made some videos for them as well. It's not not write by us, it's the sponsoring company's site. At the end is written on german (down below), that they were our sponsors etc.

But this was an facebook post, by Rodney Sewell, which mentioned that he is mentoring us. Otherwise there is a source, where is written that we made a intership at Rodney Sewell Productions. Google is worthless? Google also inserted it a few days ago. Just google [MovieJamStudios]] on google.de, Adobe has written an user story about MovieJamStudios as well. 84.168.92.66 ( talk) 16:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

think-big.org may be owned by Telefonica, but the think-big.org page you cite is written in the first person; for example, “Wir sind Schülerinnen und Schüler des Lise-Meitner Gymnasiums” (“We are students of the Lise-Meitner Gymnasium”). So the page is written by you not by them.
As I said before, Wikipedia does not consider Facebook to be a reliable source. Likewise IMDb: being listed there means little more than that you exist.
You ask, “Google is worthless?” Yes, Absolutely for showing notability!!! Listing there means only that you are mentioned on the web: Places like the English Wikipedia page we are discussing or your webpages or your Facebook page. What is interesting on Google is that it doesn’t show you mentioned on German Wikipedia; dewiki must not think you are notable.
So that leaves us with only the BR and Merkur pages, and I seem to be the only Wikipedian here who is impressed even with them. — teb728 t c 11:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
...and the O2 and Telefonica article. The german Wikipedia article wasn't released by us and it was really really bad (more than our English one ;)) I don't see the problem. Everyone above has said, that the tone is more an advertisement, so let's change the whole tone!! But I think our company definitely shows notability? If you don't believe me, the BR and Merkur would be still enough? Could we find a solution, for both of us, change the tone, some paragraphs, etc.

OK? Would be very nice. These fake accounts, if they are some, these are definitely not from us, okay? 91.63.251.161 ( talk) 11:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply

and the think-big.org is NOT written by us, it's only an citation on the website from ours. But scroll down below the description, right? There is written that the Medienzentrum München and Telefonica and O2 were our sponsors, partners, and we made some videos for them. There is also the reference for Germany's best youth movie written, just read it... 91.63.251.161 ( talk) 11:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply

— 2003:62:4348:F700:418B:F6A9:1565:26AB ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Delete Insufficient reliable sources to demonstrate notability. All of the COI on this AFD page doesn't really help, either. If it's really notable, it needs to be rewritten by someone without a COI anyway. —  kikichugirl  oh hello! 21:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No apparent notability, and all of the COI is dreadful. The puppetry of both sorts on this AfD is overwhelming, and proves the issues with COI. Kharkiv07 ( T) 23:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:05, 17 December 2015 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MovieJamStudios&oldid=1142611593"