Deletion of Monumental Pictures

Comment: None of the references cited here are |independent, they all seem to come from the organization itself. This is almost G11-worthy; it's fairly promotional and  is applicable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:INDEPENDENT||WP:TNT)

Comment: There's just nothing out there to show that this organization is notable. It exists as a company, however |existing does not give notability as it's expected that an organization will exist and put out work. If the director's article is kept this can redirect there, however this article is far too promotionally written to be kept. The article has sources, however none of them are usable to show notability and this is actually a pretty good example of how inserting a ton of sourcing can backfire pretty heavily. Not only does the sourcing ''not'' show notability, but the insertion of 20+ unusable sources actually makes the organization seem ''less'' notable. That the article is also written in a fairly non-neutral manner (ie, to make the company look as good as possible) and contains content that could be argued as |original research since it's written in a manner that comes across as personal opinion doesn't help much either. My point in saying all of this is to emphasize to the closing admin that this article history should not be kept - if the organization does ever pass notability guidelines then it would be better to just start an article completely from scratch
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ITEXISTS||WP:OR)

Comment: This might be speedyable as unambiguous spam. In any case, it looks like there is a http://deadline.com/2016/01/room-screenwriter-emma-donoghue-frog-music-with-monumental-pictures-alison-owen-and-debra-hayward-1201683762/ film company by the same name run by Debra Hayward that is unaffiliated with this company. Offhand I'm finding absolutely nothing to show that this article is notable. I'm tempted to clean the article up since it's been |citation spammed by  and unusable sources and if I find any sources I will, but offhand I'm not really finding anything out there that isn't primary, |a self-published source, or in a place that Wikipedia would otherwise see as unreliable and/or non-notability giving
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Citation overkill (WP:OVERCITE||WP:PRIMARY||WP:SPS)