Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monumental Pictures
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
— User:Tokyogirl79, 09:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:ITEXISTS||WP:OR (Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions)