Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Visual Effects Companies In India

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. Sandstein 20:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Visual Effects Companies In India

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page contains four VFX studios "based" in India. Famous Studios is based in Miami, FL; Trace VFX is based in New York City, NY. The only two companies that are actually based in India are Red Chillies Entertainment and Prime Focus Limited. It is unnecessary to create a "List of..." article that only includes two items. Rayukk (talk) 20:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rayukk (talk) 20:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is hard to believe that there are just two visual effects companies in India. It seems much more likely that the list is just incomplete and needs expansion. We should ask, what kind of criteria should this list article have? Common selection criteria is outlined at WP:CSC. A brief search turned up this, which mentions Crest Studios. There are probably more out there that research can turn up. Rayukk, what do you think? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, there are definitely more than two vfx companies in India, but I hardly believe this article qualifies as encyclopedic content. Most countries probably have more than two VFX companies, but there are no articles for that either. I think it would be sufficient to create a subcategory (e.g. "Visual effects company based in India") under companies, vfx, India,... and be done with it. Rayukk (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if it has not been done before, we could be onto something new. :) As for replacing the list with a category, WP:CLT says that categories and lists should not be considered in conflict with each other. Sometimes we can have both, sometimes we have one or the other. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not encyclopedic. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BeenAroundAWhile, why is it not encyclopedic? WP:NOTESAL covers the notability of stand-alone lists says that there can be a case for "more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria [that] may justify the notability of stand-alone lists". For example, we see list of companies having different lists of companies. A list of visual effects companies can exist, it is just that no one has done it yet. It seems appropriate to group these companies further by territory, which we often do in film-related categories. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is pretty obvious this article was created by someone who is probably proud of his country for being home to VFX companies. Of course that's not a bad thing, but I think it's unnecessary for the sole reason that it's unencyclopedic. Here you can find the version of the article when it was first created. After the two companies that are not based in India are removed, the article will consists of merely two notable companies. I hope you agree with me that there is no need in an article that lists two items. --Rayukk (talk) 22:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am suggesting going beyond the original intent. For example, if someone created an article to promote a minor celebrity, and we editors found that the celebrity was notable, we would keep the article and clean it up to lack a promotional tone. For this list, we could add other companies we find so it would be somewhat fuller list and perhaps inspire other editors to start similar VFX-related lists. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True, but like you said, if "we editors found that the celebrity was notable"... I (and I think BeenAroundAWhile too) definitely do not find it notable though. :) Rayukk (talk) 09:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Firstly, Wikipedia is not a directory: the article is too specialized and it itself is an orphan. Otherwise Singapore can have its own article too. Secondly and more importantly, this list lacks reliable sources. Finally, categories are a perfect substitute and a more appropriate method in contrast to this list. - Mailer Diablo 17:24, 21 April 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.