Feature Films for Families – Speedy moot. The deletion discussion is not being contested, nor is the 2022 speedy, but rather a case has been made that factors have changed due to source access. The article is now in draft space where it can be improved before a return to mainspace. If there are extant concerns about sourcing in the new article, the course of action is an AfD. StarMississippi23:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Article on a Utah-based kidvid company, deleted back in early November 2017 for lack of WP:CORPDEPTH thanks to this AFD; an early July 2022 re-creation attempt was also shot down. After some 5–7 years, looks like WP:Library may be coming to the rescue. (What follows below may be enough for now to meet WP:SIGCOV and WP:NORG/WP:NMEDIA—lest we look a bit harder beyond lots of natter on their telemarketing practices?)
Jones, Lara (1996-02-05). "Film company building new distribution center". The Enterprise. Vol. 25, no. 31. Salt Lake City. p. 1. Retrieved 2023-02-11 – via ProQuest. — Mentions co-founder Baker III, the founding date (1988), and the inaugural year of operation (1990).
Rattle, Barbara (1993-05-10). "Wholesome films pay off for Murray's Feature Films". The Enterprise. Vol. 22, no. 47. Salt Lake City. p. 1. Retrieved 2023-02-11 – via ProQuest. — At original press time, the company's "president and executive producer [was] former KSL-TV sports anchor Don Judd". Also from this source:
"Feature Films for Families' goal is to strengthen traditional values through feature film entertainment produced and distributed directly to homes on videotape, [public information director Michael] Clapier explained."
"Feature Films for Families not only produces its own movies, but also carries 'G' rated films from other sources and re-edits or 'sanitizes' some Hollywood productions."
As an added bonus since our last appeal attempt, here's what AVID Logos has to say on their recent fate (with relevant WP links added):
"In 2018, the company was fined by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for $45.5 million (settled to $487,735 due to the company being unable to pay such a high fee). This is because it did more than 117 million illegal telemarketing calls to people in the Do Not Call Registry between 2007 and 2011, for the purposes of selling their DVDs and tickets to the 2009 theatrical release of The Velveteen Rabbit. They would often hide these calls under the guise of a charity called 'Kids First' that was looking to make a list of good family movies, and claim that they would donate the proceeds of their DVDs to police and fire departments when they didn't. Since the lawsuit closed, FFFF has been much quieter, with most of its activity being its own online 'streaming service' (actually a website with embedded and paywalled Vimeo uploads of their library)."
From here, perhaps the S.S. Cunard (talk·contribs) may give us an extra hand this time around?
Endorse both the 2017 AfD and the 2022 G4, but no objection to draftify. Echoing the response Liz gave the appellant, nothing stops any editor in good standing from submitting a fresh draft to AfC, especially if new sources have emerged. Owen×☎13:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edit the DRV instructions to tell people that if no one is trying to stop them, they should not come to DRV with requests like this. Go to REDUND and request REFUND *to draftspace* and improve it there. If the AfD reasons for deletion are overcome, you may restore it yourself. If you’re not sure, use AfC not DRV. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd normally want an undeletion to compare the G4, but that's been a couple of years ago, and if anyone would have done a G4 correctly in 2022, I'm expecting Liz would have. Draftifying a new version either based on the old version or completely from scratch is fine. Obviously, make a good faith effort to demonstrate notability before putting it back into mainspace. That won't guarantee it won't be challenged or deleted, but it should preempt further speedy deletion attempts. Jclemens (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The version deleted at afd was a full article with 576 words of prose in its final revision. The 2022 recreation consisted entirely of an unreferenced tag (added by the creator), an infobox, "Feature Films for Families, or FFFF, is an privately-held entertainment company located in Murray, Utah. It was formed in 1986.", and categories. It was at least an A7. —Cryptic21:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the telemarketing and fraud charges mentioned above, though not their ultimate conclusion (given that the page was deleted before that), made up 3/4 of both the text and references of the version deleted at afd. I don't know that I'd consider the exact size of the eventual fine and settlement as significant new information. —Cryptic21:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore as draft. This should have gone to WP:REFUND instead of DRV, but it didn't. And Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, so it is reasonable to have the discussion at DRV as well. A sufficiently modified draft will not be subject to G4 when returned to mainspace, but still may be challenged at AFD. The original 2017 AFD was obviously correct interpretation of unanimous consensus to delete. As a non-admin with only access to the above summary, I have no formal comment on the G4 deletion, except that Liz is one of the better closing/deleting admins on the site (as is OwenX, who endorsed her decision). FrankAnchor13:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore as draft - When requests like this come to DRV, it is not clear whether the petitioner is asking us to:
