Deletion of Spanish Group Films (second nomination)

Comment: Call this whatever you'd like, but as long as a topic fails  it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Period
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: advert, , and please protect it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI)

Comment: Their website points at the usual ignorance of , ,  and |Wikipedia is not a web hosting service
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Autobiography (WP:AUTO||WP:COI||WP:OWN||WP:NOT)

Comment: The fact that information about the Fox company meets  standards. Please familiarize yourself with that policy as it is the heart of the matter here
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: No. All our articles must contain only material that has been published by |reliable sources. Those reliable sources need not be on-line, however we must still |cite them. If we were to investigate a topic ourselves first-hand and write up what we had found, that would be |original research. We must therefore rely on the information gathered about a topic by reliable sources. This allows us to |verify the information in an article by |citing those reliable sources. If no reliable sources have written about a topic, as is the case here, then that topic is not |notable enough to deserve an article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:CITE||WP:OR||WP:V||WP:CITE||WP:NOTE)

Comment: Just to help clarify further, look at J._R._R._Tolkien#_note-41|Note 44 in today's featured article J. R. R. Tolkien. This is an example of a |reliable source that is ''not'' online and that has been correctly cited in an article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)