Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eleven Arts

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep. Spartaz Humbug! 18:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eleven Arts[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Eleven Arts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that there's anything notable about this organization. They distribute movies--great. But there is no secondary coverage that actually discusses anything about them, just mentions that they exist (and I just removed a press release saying how good they were in Wikipedia's voice). Drmies (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable since they have been covered directly in industry periodicals. It looks like this article got fluffed up in the past week and can be reverted to before that as a baseline. Some articles where the company is headlined are:
I'm not as familiar with anime-related sources, so not sure which ones can be considered reliable. I get that the recent puffed-up nature makes the topic look improperly promotional, but I think there could still be an encyclopedic version with a few solid, neutral paragraphs and a list of distributed works. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eleven Arts (the page I added to) is a production and distribution company with prominent anime and live-action titles. There are a number of similar pages for similar companies. Aniplex of America, Funimation, gkids are all notable, respectable, and detailed examples of existing distribution pages for anime films that have similar content to the edits that were made in the past week. Users who access Wikipedia in order to use it as an open resource for all information and knowledge for U.S. anime distribution would not be able to have their educational needs fulfilled, and deleting this page would not serve the purpose that Wikipedia was intended for. It is confusing as a public user when a dispute is being made with no preface to what a "notable" distribution company would entail. There are several dozen sources cited within these recent edits that show every statement has a press release to verify that it is a major contributor to film distribution and production.
It has been mentioned in every post on this topic that no mod with professional knowledge of the validity of "anime news sources" has weighed in. In order to have an unbiased and informed discussion on the validity of this page's recent contributions, a moderator with a surface level of knowledge of anime news sources weighing in would be needed.
The recent changes to the page, and the current existing changes that are still public, are all lists of films that are associated with Eleven Arts. A list of films and which year they were released theatrically (or re-released in a different country) is public information and valuable information for people pursuing knowledge about film. This information not only has various citations in each section from a variety of news sources (not just "anime news sources" but reputable film websites.) However, all of this information about production and distribution is also displayed on end credits for these film titles. I believe that films at festivals like Sundance should be accessible as public knowledge.
In terms of the recent additions to the Wikipedia page, the previous Wikipedia page was not at all fact-checked, correctly written, informative, or detailed. There was only one short description line that was copied directly from a 2017 press release. (That, in my opinion, felt like more of an opinion than a non-biased statement.) My additions were to add details that were cited by multiple sources and give a better description overall.
I understand and respect any interpretation of my writing that would lead mods to decide to omit phrases, sentences, or details. I am completely open to any changes with my entry. However, the decision to delete or prevent my changes completely to a previous (poorly fact checked and biased) version of the pages doesn't seem to make much sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.123.60.146 (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and and WP:PROMO, especially the part that says, "Wikipedia articles about a person, company or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts." Furthermore, the previous version is closer to the ideal version because there is not a lot written about the organization in the first place, though a list of films distributed would work. WP:REFSPAM is also a concern with this draft. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Please note that if the article is kept, I will restore it to the more straightforward version here and incorporate the above-mentioned sources and a limited list of distributed films. I find that coverage does exist, but definitely not 8+ kBs' worth and not 30+ references' worth. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is just a list of the films they've distributed, we need to see why they're notable, not just what they do to stay in business. Oaktree b (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does "why they're notable" even mean? WP:N says topics should be "worthy of notice". The above sources notice the company conducting business and write about it. You're going beyond the guidelines, it seems. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
*We need to see how they satisfy the notability guidelines. Simply having an article about what they do isn't enough. We need to see discussions in reliable, third-party sources such as peer-reviewed journals, newspapers of record, prominent industry journals or the likes of a Time magazine talking about how the business had made an impact or detailing the history of the company, interviews with individuals connected with the business in such sources... This is basically what you would write on the back of a napkin to briefly explain it to someone. Notability implies they are more than a run-of-the-mill business, the article doesn't provide this. I'm not sure there are sources that can provide these facts; if there are, please provide them. Oaktree b (talk) 02:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is too overly specific. We want significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the topic. You can personally insist that the coverage needs so-and-so details, but the guidelines do not require that a business be extraordinary to warrant its own article. It needs to be worthy of notice, and the above links indicate that noteworthiness with not just one-sentence mentions or partial discussion, but especially direct and headlined. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:50, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The guidelines for companies/organization are listed at WP:NCORP. The criteria for establishing notability is strict, take a read of the requirement for "Independent Content" in WP:ORGIND and for "Significant Coverage" at WP:CORPDEPTH. It is the same criteria for all companies. HighKing++ 12:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b, you seem to be judging notability on the basis of the current version of the article, which is not how notability works. Did you look at the five sources that Erik posted above, or search for any sources yourself? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm hard-pressed to believe that Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, and ScreenDaily do not qualify as high-quality reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking. Their articles cover a wide swathe of film-related activities that encompasses reviews, production updates, wider critical and audience reception, controversies where they appear, and what film-related organizations are doing. With their history and their breadth even within the scope of film, it is dubious to claim that that these sources are not independent of the content. And here, these sources are literally headlining the organization, so claiming lack of significant coverage is incorrect. I understand and support the need for caution to ensure that Wikipedia is not a means of promotion, and we should ensure that articles about organizations are "written in an objective and unbiased style". Wikipedia also combines features of general and specialized encyclopedias, and topics will be more covered by topically-related reliable sources than general ones. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Much as I'd love to say "The result was delete. 1) Drmies is always right 2) When Drmies is wrong, refer to 1)" .... but I think we need some more input to determine whether or not to delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Erik. I chuckled at that relist notice, but ultimately it looks quite overwhelmingly like notability is indicated here. I have some passing familiarity (although nothing resembling expertise or even, honestly, much interest) with anime and found heavy/extensive coverage on Anime News Network, which is a reliable subculture source, in addition to the reliable overculture sources given. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 03:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. They have been involved with licensing and releasing many notable films, like the Sound! Euphonium and Laughing Under the Clouds movies, as well as A Silent Voice (film). They also have significant coverage from ANN. Link20XX (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I concur with the assessment made by other users on here. The article should be improved, but it should also be kept at the same time. Historyday01 (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've overhauled the article using the film-related reliable sources that write about the company. I redid the filmography tables and dumped a lot of the promotional language and press releases used. See before and after. Please review to ensure that it meets WP:PROMO. There may be coverage in Japanese-language news sources too, though I wouldn't be able to look for that. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Much better, this is what we were looking for in the first place. I'm neither for nor against at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article needs improvement as a whole, but I don't think its notability is questionable. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Forget about PROMO, the crucial piece that's missing are references. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. Coverage of the movies does not confer notability on this company. HighKing++ 21:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As stated above. Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, and Screen Daily are reliable sources that are independent of the topic. It is absurd to claim that these periodicals should be disqualified because they cover film, which a film company is inevitably involved with. It implies that no subject-specific publication should be allowed to be a reliable source for being topically related to the entity at hand. Contrast that with something like Kodak being actually affiliated with the cinematography products used in The 40-Year-Old Version here, which should not count toward notability. That's a key difference. Are you saying that Variety and The Hollywood Reporter have an affiliation with the topic because they cover film, or because they benefit fiscally from reporting on this entity? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm assuming the sources are "reliable" but you seem to be ignoring the fact that a source needs to be more than simply "reliable". You are also mis-interpreting what is required by "independent" and "significant". Since this is a company/organization, we therefore we need to analyse the sources using WP:NCORP which has two particular sections - WP:CORPDEPTH (which defines significant coverage) and WP:ORGIND (which defined "Independent Content". You mentioned three sources, lets look at the first mentioned in the article from each one:
  • This Variety reference is about the Pusan International Film Festival Asian Film Market but the contents relative to this company are based entirely on an interview with its CEO Junichi Suzuki. That fails WP:ORGIND.
  • This Hollywood Reporter reference is based on an announcement that the company picked up the rights to a movie and then goes on to discuss the movie. There is no in-depth information on the company whatsoever which fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Also, this also looks very much like is was based on a company announcement and if that was the case the reference would also fail WP:ORGIND as not containing any "Independent Content".
  • The Screen Daily suffers the exact same problems. It says nothing about the company (other than they've "picked up" international rights to a movie and "taken over sales") and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. All of the detail is about the movie or details around the movie, nothing about the company.
CORPDEPTH states that what is required is "deep or significant" coverage which mean we require an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis on the company. This "deep coverage" also cannot be "echo chamber" coverage - we need more than regurgitation of information provided by the company. You're trying to excuse the lack of coverage and saying that coverage of the movies can be used to establish the notability of the company. No. Notability is not inherited. If this company was notable, somebody would have written something "in depth" about the actual company using "Independent Content". If you think a reference is out there, link it below and we can check for yourselves. Nothing I've seen and nothing I can find meets the mark so far. HighKing++ 21:46, 21 February 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eleven_Arts&oldid=1010288974"