Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Special Entertainment (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 11:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Special Entertainment

This article was afd'd before with the debate result being delete. Recently, there was an afd for a supposed subsidiary of this company. You can check that afd here.[[1]] During that debate, there was some consensus that the subsidiary was more notable than the parent company. Since that article was deleted, I think it follows that this article should be removed as well. Additionally, the article is not substantially sourced and it does not assert notability. Delete. SERSeanCrane (talk) 03:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they attempt to draw their notability from their production company, the aforementioned Special Entertainment:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 07:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 07:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep ~~Delete~~ Special Entertainment as barely notable.. but notable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Andrew Swant as his notability is drawn from his works and not Special Entertainment. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - (From WP:Creative)

Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. Fail

The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. Fail

The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Fail

The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries. Fail

Response With respects to the nom, per the significant attention toward Hamlet A.D.D, and sources covering the subject himself at MKE Online #1, MKE Onlne #2, Outside In, Milwaukee Journal Sentinal, Vital Source Magazine, UWM.edu, Bobby Ciraldo Passes WP:CREATIVE. Its a squeeker... but he passes. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With regard to these sources:

MKE Online #1 & MKE Onlne #2 - Per WP:LIVE#Reliable_sources, Zines are not reliable sources. With that said, the first entry details the duo's internet meme, but, per WP:ONE, this doesn't cement Swant as wiki-notable. The second entry is about another artist collaborating with Ciraldo; nothing important, really.

Outside In & Milwaukee Journal Sentinal - These two links refer to the same entry and are about Swant, not Ciraldo.

Vital Source Magazine - Per WP:LIVE#Reliable_sources, Zines are not reliable sources.

UWM.edu - This is nothing more than a fellowship announcement. Also, College Newspapers are a weak source for establishing notability as they tend to have very circulation.

SERSeanCrane (talk) 02:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bobby Ciraldo as his notability is drawn from his works and not Special Entertainment. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - (From WP:Creative)

Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. Fail

The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. Fail

The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Fail

The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries. Fail

Response With respects to the nom, per the significant attention toward Hamlet A.D.D, and sources covering the subject himself at On Milwaukee, MKE Online #1, MKE Onlne #2, Outside In, Milwaukee Journal Sentinal, Vital Source Magazine, UWM.edu, Andrew Swant Passes WP:CREATIVE. Its a squeeker... but he passes. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With regard to these sources:

On Milwaukee - ~~I'm not sure how this would qualify as a reliable source. I may be wrong, though.~~ See below.

MKE Online #1 & MKE Onlne #2 - Per WP:LIVE#Reliable_sources, Zines are not reliable sources. With that said, the first entry details the duo's internet meme, but, per WP:ONE, this doesn't cement Swant as wiki-notable. The second entry is about another artist collaborating with Swant; nothing important, really.

Outside In & Milwaukee Journal Sentinal - These two links refer to the same entry. There, the writer notes: "So, as you may know by now, several artists and readers and friends called into the Art City phone line to make suggestions about what to see this Gallery Night -- tomorrow night already! Andrew Swant had a few ideas. Click here [omitted] to listen to his voice message. How does this source establish notability?

Vital Source Magazine - Per WP:LIVE#Reliable_sources, Zines are not reliable sources.

UWM.edu - This is nothing more than a fellowship announcement. Also, College Newspapers are a weak source for establishing notability as they tend to have very circulation.

SERSeanCrane (talk) 02:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal: "On Milwaukee" promotes themselves as "Milwaukee's Daily Magazine" and is a reliable source independent of the subject. Had the nom followed the links in the proffered ref, he would have found this and this which specifcally speak toward the notability of Special Entertainment and its filmmakers. MKE has just last week been proven notable and survived an earlier attempt from this nom to delete its article. Their reports are reliable and independent of the subject. MKE was a weekly (PAPER) magazine published in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, by Journal Communications and is not a "zine". MKE Online is simply an archive of past stories. Notability is not temporary, dispite the different format of its presentation. Vital Source is also not a "zine", despite the nom's claim, as it has both a hardcopy print edition and an online version. The proferred story covered Bobby Ciraldo, Andrew Swant, AND Special Entertainment. Multiple sources of various strengths were offered to refute the nom's continued claim of non-notability. If the nom continues to have a problem with these sources, he may wish to bring his concerns to the Reliable Sources noticeboard, as his opinion of their reliability is not supported by consensus. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I goofed on the OnMilwaukee.com reference. My apologies, it is reliable. That said, the two articles you referenced do not establish notability, rather, they point to the groups participation in a local film festival (they competed amongst 70 total submissions), and a report on a spoof of what what (in the butt). 'What what' is notable, however, as was explained to in the Brownmark Films afd [[2]] notability is not inherited. SERSeanCrane (talk) 04:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With regard to the MKE diatribe, the latter comment still stands: "the first entry details the duo's internet meme, but, per WP:ONE, this doesn't cement Swant as wiki-notable. The second entry is about another artist collaborating with Swant; nothing important, really." SERSeanCrane (talk) 04:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Finally, with regard to vital source, zine or not, it republished a press release (which is available word for word at the UWM.edu link) from an art fellowship award that details the recipient's resumes (independent??). While somewhat impressive, it is not a claim to notablity. If it were, we should go ahead and start the list of Rhodes Scholars. SERSeanCrane (talk) 05:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Special Entertainment - normally this should be redirected to prostitution or strip show. 76.66.195.159 (talk) 08:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: Please review what comments are directed toward Special Entertainment and what comments are directed toward filmmakers Andrew Swant and Bobby Ciraldo, as different coverages for different reasons would make it difficult to paint all three with the same brush. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Special Entertainment doesn't have a lot of news coverage, but it looks to be a legitimate company with verifiable films in production. Either way, Swant and Ciraldo both have noteworthy accomplishments outside of Special Entertainment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.30.186.104 (talk) 06:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please name the noteworthy accomplishments. SERSeanCrane (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gee... the assertions of notability ARE in the article, after all... but since you want it relisted here: "whose works include Hamlet A.D.D. and William Shatner's Gonzo Ballet, as well as work on the film Modus Operandi." If the the works of a writer/filmmaker are notable, then that notability is also the filmmaker's for creating the notable item which would have otherwise existed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are they notable? Let's save that debate for another day. SERSeanCrane (talk) 05:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep all three. Some evidence of notability. A merge discussion after AfD would be appropriate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this evidence. SERSeanCrane (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

??? That's what the article's discussion page are for. Here, editors read the articles, look at the proferred sources, and offer their opinion toward reaching a consensus. You ask editors qualify their opinions if they disagree with you... but they have read the same informations you did and have simply reached a different conclusion. With respects, wouldn't it be better to simply let the AfD run its course? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that afds are not a vote and, to me, the above statement constitutes nothing more than a vote. With that said, I don't think it's better to just let it run its course. The point of these is to generate a discussion so that consensus can be achieved. What did he find notable about the articles? Why is this a weak keep versus a normal keep? For the deletionistas, what is the article's major shortcoming? Meaningful participation is all I ask for. Feel free to chastise me on my talk page from here on. SERSeanCrane (talk) 04:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm... looked over my words carefully and did not see that I used the word "vote". Sorry you take my opinions at this AfD as such even though AfD is not a vote. I will not rebut your comments at this AfD anywhere but at this AfD. Transparency is best. Other editors who are more succinct in their opinions certainly have that right and a closing admin will make of it what he or she will. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was referring to ChildofMidnight's ~~vote~~ statement. SERSeanCrane (talk) 06:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. ChildofMidnight may have been succinct, but the opinion seems based upon having seen the sources and read the article and discussion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This isn't a case of self-published work on youtube and myspace. The business and the individuals have been involved in notable projects, participated in major film festivals, and been recognized for their work. It's not a clear cut case, we're not talking George Lucas here, but I think it makes the encyclopedia better to include the articles in some form. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:55, 18 December 2008 (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.