Deletion of Big Sky Motion Pictures (2nd nomination)

Comment: per meeting , defunct now or not and per the same decisions and comments of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Sky Motion Pictures|the last AFD. '''IE:'''  The company and its productions are spoken of in |multiple reliable sources: http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=AD&p_theme=ad&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=11CCE270564C5020&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM The Advocate, http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-31876065_ITM New Orleans CityBusiness, http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=BX&s_site=sunherald&p_multi=BX&p_theme=realcities&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=11A73A288BA696F8&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM Sun Herald, http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-30139863_ITM Decatur Daily, http://www.nola.com/business/t-p/index.ssf?/base/money-1/1195369268190320.xml&coll=1 The Times Picayune, http://deltagrooveproductions.com/ Delta Groove, http://www.worstpreviews.com/names.php?name=big%20sky%20motion%20pictures Worst Previews, http://www.lafilm.org/media/index.cfm?id=1023 Louisiana Film and Television, http://www.eclectogroove.com/ Eclecto Groove, http://www.realitywanted.com/call/1728-casting-up-and-coming-actors-for-a-movie-in-columbus-oh Reality Wanted, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/business/media/22film.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=&st=nyt New York Times, and more...http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-31876065_ITM, http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=BX&s_site=sunherald&p_multi=BX&p_theme=realcities&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=11A73A288BA696F8&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM, and http://www.nola.com/business/t-p/index.ssf?/base/money-1/1195369268190320.xml&coll=1   Multiple articles speaking toward the company and some about it infusing Louisiana with money as it decided to film there give us specific references to the company, as the film was (at the time) only in pre-production. No company, no film project. No film project, no write-ups.  And as with similar articles, it is expected that sources would write about the productions of a production company.  Per guideline: {{tq|"'A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. '''If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability'''."}}  My embolding as  is not a mandate (intentional redlink to underscore that it is not a guide).  Yes, being big and prolific and rich can help with press and notability, and while even this was never a big rich production company like Pixar or Disney or DreamWorks or Sony Pictures Entertainment|Sony or Warner Bros. or MGM, and even if it may be seen as "weak" by some, |notability is not temporary and this one makes it, even if only "just".  And too, this is not being a case of ED, as just as with actors or musicians or artists or politicians or scholars or athletes, a film production company's notability is found through the products they create... what they do or have done '''IS''' the claim to notability.   Wikipedia is not about only the biggest and the best or most popular. It's about topics which meet our inclusion standards.  Legal issues and the company closing down should be added to inform our readers of its history, and it's dissolving is a reason to ensure we get archived news links, but not a reason for the topic of a now-closed company to be deleted. And oh....the "unreliable" and incomplete IMDB's omission errors are not ours
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP||WP:GNG||WP:SUBSTANTIAL||WP:NTEMP||WP:INHERIT)

Comment: Fails /. Making some movies that are themselves marginally notable (or even fully notable) does not a notable company make. Unless, of course, there's significant coverage of the company, too.  The above links, along with my own search, are press releases, brief mentions, unreliable sources, and a couple local business announcements (i.e. the kind that a local paper would report if a company were moving to their town). Those sorts of local papers ''count'', but they're not remotely enough. What far and away the most coverage is about is the company's -- or more specifically, people associated with the company -- legal troubles. This raises some BLPCRIME concerns, but ultimately the coverage isn't very substantial anyway. &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:GNG)

Comment: Very little coverage of this organization.  Articles about the films make passing mention of the organization.  Some lengthy items regarding legal issues which don't add to notability per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ILLCON)