Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arch Enemy Entertainment

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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, consensus was clearly established after relisting.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arch Enemy Entertainment

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

I came across this by way of a PROD on one of their other articles, Urban Monsters. The very big issue here is a depth of coverage and notability. The original state of the article was pretty blatant puffery and promotion, but I edited it down because there was the potential for notability. After removing all of the links that went to primary sources or things that didn't really pertain to the company, I was left with three sources. The issue is that while USA Today does write about this company, that the paper is working with AEE on a digital comic makes them primary sources. It's in their best interests to promote the company. There were mentions of (possibly) notable persons involved in the company or that they were involved with (potentially) notable projects that weren't done under the AEE banner, but none of that translates into notability for the company. A search brings up very little that can be used as a reliable source. I found two links that mention the company or its products, but the problem is that the second one through CBR is about a comic rather than the company, with the company being but the briefest of mentions. The one via the Telegraph is more promising, but doesn't show a depth of coverage. Even with these two sources added, this company seems to seriously fail WP:CORP. Other than that, all I could find was a post about some smattering of drama over a series they helped produce. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, Tokyogirl79. I apologize if this formatting for response isn't ideal. I've never done this before.

I appreciate your concern for the efficiency of the page for Arch Enemy Entertainment. However, your edits have not only misrepresented the company but omitted much of the scope that my original article provided. The edits have completely removed legitimate aspects of the company. (For example, "F00-Fighters" is not the only current project at AEE, and there is no mention of one of AEE's most well-known comics, "The Big Bad Wolf.") The edits have also removed numbers of sales and other company information. Information like this can be found on any number of other Wikipedia pages for artists/companies/etc: Stephen King's Wikipedia page boasts dollar amounts, publishing company Alfred A. Knopf, Inc contains a list of authors published through the house, and the page for Twitter has numbers of users, tweets, etc to explain its success and credibility. As I provided sources for claims made in the original edit to ensure their credibility, explaining numbers for AEE sales or listing projects in which AEE has participated is not "blatant puffery and promotion," but serves to further illuminate readers on the company itself -- the entire point of an encyclopedia.

I am willing to consider any changes you might suggest for a more accessible Wikipedia page for the company. However, I can say with absolute certainty that the current state of revision that you have presented is inaccurate and requires reevaluation. IDuchess (talk) 01:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IDuchess (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. czar · · 17:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is still one of notability even if there are more projects. The company has received no in-depth coverage in reliable sources. The sources you gave initially were all primary sources and even worse, had nothing to do with the actual company. It's grand that the people involved have been involved with other projects that might be notable or might be notable in their own right, but notability is not inherited. It's also full of various comments such as "movie star and R&B sensation". These aren't really neutrally written and are more along the lines of something you'd see on a press release or other promotional material. I'll be honest and say that this reads more like a promotion for the company than a neutral article. I'll also ask honestly: are you editing on behalf of the company? IE, are you an employee, intern, friend/family member, or anything like that? There's no rule against editing something you have a conflict of interest with, but having such a COI causes many to see notability where there is none and for them to take a more personal interest in the company. It's better to state any potential COI up front. Many of the links are primary at best and many are unusable as reliable sources. In fact, here's a rundown of the sources:
Source rundown
  1. [1] This is a fan blog for G.I. Joe. Fan blogs are rarely, RARELY usable as reliable sources. What doesn't help is that this talks about something that Wilson did before he started the company. Again, notability is not inherited.
  2. [2] This is a wikia. Wikias are never usable as reliable sources and are heavily discouraged from being used as even trivial or primary sources. This is mostly because anyone can edit them. It's the same reason why Wikipedia isn't usable as a RS for most journals and classes.
  3. [3] This doesn't even mention Wilson, let alone the company.
  4. [4] This one does briefly mention that Wilson is writing the script, but again- this doesn't extend notability to the company. To be quite blunt, he could have cured cancer before starting the company and that wouldn't extend notability to the company. It makes it more likely that the company would gain coverage, but it doesn't guarantee it.
  5. [5] This is an IMDb link. IMDb cannot give notability and really, this was just inserted to show that the other person has done notable things that weren't really done with the company. Again, notability is not inherited. Him being a producer on Dexter is nice and all, but that has little to nothing to do with AEE.
  6. [6] This is a link to Image's page. At best this is a primary source since they're the publisher. Primary sources can be used, but generally all it can do is prove that the comic exists. Nobody is doubting that the comic exists.
  7. [7] This one doesn't even mention AEE. I'll be quite frank and say that in most cases, production companies in general (regardless of what they're producing) rarely get mentioned or gain any in-depth coverage. This does not exclude them from having to fufill basic notability guidelines.
  8. [8] This is an album that Gibson wrote for the comic. Does not give notability and really, this was removed because it's a merchant source. It's not acceptable to use merchant sources in any article.
  9. [9] This is a CNN link, but at no point does it actually mention the company. It'd help show notability for the comic, but having a notable product doesn't automatically give the company notability. It honestly helps if something actually mentions the company.
  10. [10] iReports aren't usable as reliable sources because they're essentially blogs that anyone can write. It doesn't help that this seems to have been predominantly taken from a press release.
  11. [11] This is a search result on Image Comics. This doesn't even really back up the claims of it selling well. On a side note, selling well does not equal notability. It makes it more likely that the company would gain coverage, but it doesn't guarantee notability.
  12. [12] This is a link to a Rotten Tomatoes link for a movie. It would establish notability for the movie, but being mentioned in a movie doesn't automatically give notability. The reason is that the documentary was not solely focused on the company and there's always a question of how documentaries are slanted bias-wise. The documentary itself would maybe help as a trivial source for the company, but not much else.
  13. [13] This is one of the very, very few sources that is actually usable and one of the few I actually kept.
  14. [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19] I'm listing all of these together because essentially they're all the same. They're links posted about the comic through USA Today. USA Today is the one that they're running the comic through, so they're not usable as anything other than primary sources. No amount of primary sources will give notability. It doesn't matter where they're posted or how many you post. They don't give notability.
  15. [20] This is an image of an illustration they made for an article that isn't even about the company. This can't give notability for the company. At most this is a trivial or primary source since they were hired by Esquire to create the illustration.
  16. [21] This is a Huffington Post article. The thing about the HuffPo is that they're not really accepted as a reliable source here on Wikipedia because they're seen more as a blog than a RS. The company is only briefly mentioned and the article is more about someone else's work in other contexts. This could be a trivial source at most, but the general consensus as far as RS goes is that the HuffPo should be used to back up other, more reliable sources. If you are relying on them to give notability to keep an article, you're in trouble.
  17. [22] This a link to Amazon. This is a merchant link that goes to the author page, which is always supplied by the author, the company, or someone representing him in some context. It's never usable as a source in any context.
  18. [23] This was another one of the sources I actually kept. It's not really something that I thought entirely gave a depth of coverage for the company, but it was better than nothing.
  19. [24], [25], [26], [27], [28] More merchant links. Highly inappropriate to link to. It shows the books exist, but existing is not notability and nobody is questioning that the books exist.
Really, the edits I made actually helped the article out more than the current version does. This is just too full of overly puffed up claims, none of which particularly help establish notability for the company itself. I can ask people to come in from the reliable sources noticeboard, but I honestly don't think that they'll differ much from my estimation of the sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • I am curious as to how USA Today can be considered a primary source. Though they provide an outlet through which AEE's comics are accessible -- just as Amazon Kindle does for the novels -- they are not the company itself. I understand information found on AEE's own website or domains is primary, but articles through another source are, by definition, secondary.
As far as my affiliation with the company, I am an intern with AEE. It is my responsibility to maintain the page and anyone reading this may assume whatever bias they might infer from that fact, but I will stress that I am receiving no payment/recognition for this effort. My concern about this page is not that of an employee whose paycheck is determined by the result, but that of a journalist who wants to see a proper representation of her article's source.
If your initial distaste for the article was due to (in your words) "overly puffed up claims," I am very open to edits on the word choice and presentation. The intent was not to "sell" the company but to explain its credits. If you also dislike linking to Rotten Tomatoes and other mentioned names, then please feel free to remove the links. Obviously, I was not trying to establish some kind of notability for the company through a movie reviewing website, but merely providing easy links for readers to clarify references.
I am also curious how you evaluate articles done in blog format, such as the Huffington Post. Years ago, perhaps this was frowned upon, but in a time when the majority of highly-publicized news outlets are even presented in this way, it seems there are few real "sources" left, by this definition. I heartily agree that personal blogs are still a wary place to find credibility, but I do not find that issue in at least the majority of the sources I provided (and the very few that Wikipedia might question can simply be removed).
You make valid points in your argument. However, I wonder -- if a company's principle's notability does not extend to the company, and neither does the company's products' notability, and neither do references within documentaries, and neither do statistics -- how any company could ever achieve "notability" at all.
I look forward to contributions from third parties. IDuchess (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
response
Any company that has a direct interest in AEE will be considered a primary source. In the case of USA Today it's in their best interest to show the comic in as good a light as possible. They want people to read the comic, after all. The problem is that even if the comic is the best thing in the world, we can't take their word for it. It'd be the same if the comic was published through the New York Times or through Image Comics. Anything they put out about the comic would be seen as a primary source because they are directly involved with it in some form or fashion. Very, very few companies will ever talk smack about their products, at least not without it being a calculated campaign to secretly promote it in some fashion. That's why anything like the USA Today sources would be seen as a primary source.
The idea of the products giving notability is sort of a troublesome one and something that's a little murky when it comes to corporations. They can extend a tiny bit of notability but the company still needs to have a lot of coverage about them specifically rather than just on the products. I've seen people argue about companies gaining some notability through their products, but I've also seen a lot of companies have articles deleted because they only had 1-2 semi-notable products and no true depth of coverage. It's frustrating, to say the least.
The issue with linking to the other claims in the article (as in RT and such) is that none of them really give that much notability to the company itself. That someone went on to work with the Dexter show is interesting, but it doesn't really pertain to the article about the company. Think of it this way: it's like someone writing an article about a banana farm, then going on to say that the foreman of the banana farm has a very nice singing voice and won the national singing contest. It might be somewhat interesting, but it doesn't really pertain to the subject of the article. Such an award might help the notability of the foreman, but it does nothing for the farm and for many makes it look like you're trying to claim more notability than there is. The reason why I say "puffed up" and "advertising" is because it's common practice for press releases and such to say "Sam Smith, producer of (project that has nothing to do with the company) and who later went on to make (movie that also had nothing to do with the company) is now working with the banana farm to produce green bananas". It reads like a press release. That's part of the reason I asked about COI- if you're more used to writing specific things for the company then more than likely you're more used to writing things with a promotional intent than a neutral article. I don't mean that to sound harsh- in the business world you're better off knowing how to write a promotional article than an encyclopedic entry. It's just that when it comes to writing things that do need to be neutral and more to the point for places like Wikipedia, that type of writing style is hard to shake.
A good compromise might be to see if any of the founders of the company is notable. I was looking at Wilson's background and it looks like he might have a good amount of coverage. It might be better to create an article for him, include a sizable section in his article for this company, and redirect there. It's one of the loopholes when it comes to companies that might not pass WP:CORP. It won't be specifically focused on the company, but it'll give an area to mention the company without it being outright deleted. If this doesn't pan out, you can always WP:USERFY a copy into your userspace to work on until then. I'd have otherwise recommended including a small section in Gibson's article, which is still an option here if Wilson doesn't pass WP:GNG.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly we are not communicating. Your first paragraph is repetition of what you already said earlier that did not make sense to me, your second paragraph is an explanation of a concept I already made clear I understood (I did not defend sources such at RT; I said you may feel free to delete those), and your third paragraph is not a "compromise," as it still results in deletion of a page that deserves to be kept.
(I must also add that you are making an incredible amount of false assumptions about me. For example, my main experience is not in business or in press releases. I have never written anything promotional for AEE.)
If you go back and read our past conversations, I think you can see that I am trying to work with you. That effort does not seem to be reciprocated. As we cannot seem to gain any traction between ourselves, I think we are in need of a moderator in order to determine this outcome. Thank you for your time. IDuchess (talk) 04:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I am trying to work with you as well. The sources from USA Today are WP:PRIMARY sources because they are ultimately the comic's publisher and have a vested interest in the company. I'm honestly not sure how else I can put this, but the fact remains that in this instance USA Today cannot and will not be usable as a reliable source that shows notability. They are publishing the comic and thus have an interest in promoting it and writing about it. Let me put it this way: if Vertigo were to publish a book about Neil Gaiman, that would be seen as a primary source since they have published many of his other works and have an interest in putting out books about him. Even if the book say awful things about his work and neither the company nor Gaiman told the author what to write, the book would be a primary source because Vertigo also publishes Gaiman's works. When it comes to publishers, whether they are newspapers or comic book companies, anything that comes from their desk about things that they are reprinting, creating themselves, or circulating would be seen as a primary source because it's ultimately their product. It's no different than if the comic were to have been printed by Image Comics. Image would still be seen as a primary source. As far as your intent, I'm trying to explain that since you are involved in the company you will be more inclined to write about it in a positive light. I didn't mean this to be an insult, just that since you are both a newer Wikipedia editor and an employee with the company, you are probably not used to writing neutral articles, discerning what is and isn't a usable RS, and what should or shouldn't be added to an article. You're more prone to write things in a way that could be seen as advertising, puffery, or just not really pertinent to the article. I've asked some people to step in, but I'm not sure how else I can really phrase that USA Today would be a primary source and not something that would show notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The big issue here is a depth of coverage. The PW link is good, but remember- this is about a corporation rather than an individual. The majority of the sources in the article either don't mention the company beyond a trivial mention or don't mention it at all, as the CNN article doesn't. We're then left with three articles, one of which is more about one of the authors of one of the books than the company. The other two are good, but we need more than two sources to really show a depth of coverage. I just don't see that out there. ([29], [30]) The reason I'm so skeptical about the USA Today source is that the stories are all by the same person: Brian Truitt. The same guy that's been writing the articles promoting the comics is the guy that wrote the USA Today source that still remains on the article. I honestly can't consider the USA Today source still remaining on the article anything but trivial when you figure that the same guy has been posting tons of articles featuring and promoting the comic series on the USA Today website. I'm trying to think of a way to put this that doesn't minimalize him as a journalist when it comes to other things, but this guy is pretty much the press/promotion journalist for the series. Considering that a good portion of his posts about the comics have been to post them and go "here's the new one, isn't this awesome?", we have to approach any other articles he writes with extreme caution. It's just safer to consider this a primary source because he's been the only one who has written about the comic at all on USA Today. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I see your point about the single author, I don't agree with it. Brian Truitt is not the press/promotion journalist for the series, he's a journalist for USA Today.535 USA Today stories. Among other things, he's apparently their comic books specialist - not just for Arch Enemy, but all comic books. Take a look: DC, Marvel Image ... Those articles are written in the same tone as those about the Arch Enemy comic books, so I can't see accepting some of his articles, but not others. --GRuban (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.As an outsider to this argument looking in, I feel like someone needs to step in and say something. First and foremost,I'm not sure why people have to 'step in'.

It seems that the original question here comes down to links and sources. It seems that a young intern wrote an article about the company she works for. By the way, I checked, unpaid intern stands to gain no monetary gain from posting, which was one of the criteria for COI. Please feel free to check it out for yourselves. II also think it's rather inappropriate to ask such a question right off in trying to argue your case, Tokyogirl. So, Honestly, who do you work for? Where is your biased to? What's right? A good article? Hardly. Instead of doing the proper thing, which would be correcting an article, you asked for it to be removed. If your problem was links and sources, Perhaps it would be in the best of furthering knowledge for you to add to the argument instead of ripping it down. You wouldn't order a house demolished because the roof shingles are the wrong color, would you? Though, by your argument, it seems that might be the case. What you could have done was find a few articles and replaced them as sources. I see that you have the ability to edit pages, so what would the harm be in doing so?

As for fluff and puffy writing. I don't suppose anyone has looked at Arch Enemy Entertainment's fellow publishers? For instance, Archaia has almost nothing said about them, while Image comics has miles and miles of puffery. Please tell me you intend to trim the fat there as well, Tokyogirl. After all, you've made it your personal vendetta to trim this company's. I think everyone would benefit from your editing. Why don't you look at those pages, or better yet here is an exert from Tyrese's Wikipedia page. You acknowledge that the two worked together, yes? How does Wikipedia describe him? Couldn't you have substituted any wording you were unhappy with for this? Some version of your own, anyway. 'Tyrese Darnell Gibson (born December 30, 1978), also known simply as Tyrese, is an American R&B Singer, rapper, actor, author, former fashion model and MTV VJ. After releasing several albums, he transitioned into films, with lead roles in several major Hollywood releases.'

You argue that several of the articles were about individuals instead of the company itself, an obvious offense. Did you not look at context, or scope? Apparently not, given that those articles cited were in regards to the CEO, and his credentials in forming a company. They have everything to do with the company. According to your logic, the next president of a film studio cannot justify his placement in that position by past deeds, but by those done once he joins the organization. That is poor logic at best.

You've also cited that one of the articles, the Entertainment Weekly article, has no bearing on the company, that it is the story of one man. Once again, you fail to look at all at what is being said. The whole point was the image, which was done care of AEE. Of course, you're right, the article does not talk about them, it doesnt' mention their company at all. No, it doesn't show the scope of their work, it doesn't give notability to them at all, considering it is a nationally recognized publication.

While we are on the subject, I'm sure that Arianna Huffington will be utterly dismayed to learn that the news organization, which is read in a number of countries and sourced in dozens of wikipedia articles is a mere blog. A blog that sold for $315 million, according to it's own page. Perhaps when I start my own book review site/blog, it will do so dismally. [31]

If you had such a problem with the links that iDutchess used as source material, you could have gone looking for some. Maybe taken 20 minutes out of trying to shut the page down. I found a few, in 20 minutes. WOuld you like to add them in somewhere? Perhaps in the copy about the company's CEO, which you decided to take down? [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]

Too busy to find those? I'm sorry, I should have been more considerate to your desire to find other user to railroad a Wikipedia page.

Would you like some good news? I agree with your reasoning to pull the links and references to places that sell product. That is violation of Wikipedia rules. Rules that I have to look up based on you wanting to shut the page down. I doubt highly that everyone across the internet knows those rules. Clearly, iDutchess didn't, as she posted those links. Is that a mark against her? No, it simply means she didn't know. So, pull the Tyrese CD link. Wonderful. Pull the link to Amazon. Fine. Though, I do have a question. If only one of the books has been covered in media, where else would you propose people go for more information? This could be a question for Wikipedia on a larger scale, but I'd like to hear your opinion on the matter. Since you have such strong convictions.

So how much to you think USA Today is paying? You wonder why I ask that? [37] That is a link directly from the Think Tank page on Wikipedia. It's a review. It is a generally favorable review of a comic. It's is a lovely review (one that I don't really agree with, personally). However, by your logic, the only difference between this article and the articles about Arch Enemy are the urls attached. Fairly biased, wouldn't you say? No? Because bleeding cool has no agenda? So, again, how much do you think Brian pays to build his audience? [38] Here is a list of his articles. How many of these people do you think mention his work? How many of them source what he says? According to you, none. Brian pushes only one agenda, AEE. If you'd like, I'm sure Brian will tweet you something about where his bias lies. His twitter name is easily searchable.

I could rundown your list of problems, but it would be a waste of time. All they add up to is that you would rather knock the house down than change the shingles. You're not really looking at notability. Noting that the CEO of a film worked on the comic to one of the hottest films of the year means nothing, certainly not that he has a background in the industry his company was formed in. Nor does the fact that he worked with John Carpenter, the father of modern horror films.[39] There's a link in case you are unfamiliar with his work. that has no bearing whatsoever on his company. No, some random person should start a company, who knows nothing about the industry they want to work in. No, you're right, it has no bearing on the company, those are his credits. Because no other page lists the credits of the people that make those organizations great. The biggest problem is that you don't want to take the time to do a little extra work, to 'sound like you know what you are doing'. Do you really feel this is making 'good edits'? Will you get a raise if you cut a bunch of pages?

Better yet, do you believe that the world should not be aware of a minority owned company? Or are you the DC of Wikipedia, and want to see a recognized black figure get killed off? There are so few minority-run companies out there that they should be given a chance. Being in the world lexicon, which Wikipedia is trying to be, is that chance. Is it a big deal? No, I'm sure someone else out there could create a new page. It's the truth. However, I ask why? This one is here, it's up to date, and is factual. AEE is a known entity. While Bleeding Cool may not write about them every single day like the other companies on their site, or Comics Alliance, or Comic Book Resources, they are out there. They are a thing. How many other companies in comic books launch every single day of the week? That's right, the term is 'new comic book day'. I'm sorry I forgot. I think that such a company deserves recognition. I think they deserve a page. I've checked out all their work. First to do a book directly with Apple, on the LP system. First to tie in music. First to launch 7 days a week. That's a lot of firsts to be ignored. I noted that you took down figures that books did. I think beating Walking Dead #1 first printing is a big deal. Considering Walking Dead has a TV show.

Now, if you would like to believe that what you are trying to do is fair, unbiased, and reasonable, I will listen. So far, it hasn't been. You had a problem with links. I've solved that. You've had a problem with wording. That's been solved. What more is your problem? Is it with the company? Or the people involved? Or the fact that it's a minority owned business? Where does your bias lie. Clearly it is not on the side of facts or righteousness. Clearly it is not on fairness or duty to Wikipedia. Why this company and not the thousands of other pages? Why not correct the page that has 'Kevin can suck my balls' in the description? Doesn't that warrant your time? Or is that another Admin's job? Did you do your due diligence? I think not. Actually, I know not. Not when I was able to deflate every single argument within a 20 minute time span. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SilenceisSterling (talk • contribs) 17:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SilenceisSterling (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. czar · · 17:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You may wish to read our policies and standards for having a stand alone article WP:N and its simplified version WP:42. You may also wish to read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and stick to arguments that are going to carry any weight and a read of WP:RGW probably wouldnt hurt either. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I did try to correct the article. It's after trying to correct it and weeding out the unusable sources (which I've explained why they're unusable above), I realized that it didn't pass WP:CORP. As far as other articles go, I haven't edited those yet. It doesn't mean that I won't, just that as of yet I hadn't had a chance to. The existence of puffery and bloat on other articles doesn't mean that this article should be spared or that it justifies such content anywhere. As far as the links you've given as far as sourcing goes, one (this one, which is the same as this one) is already on the article. Another link is just a routine business listing, which is unusable as a RS. Another is from a nn blog, and the ANN link doesn't mention the company at all. We're not arguing the notability of the person who created it, just the notability of the company. I'm actually baffled as to why you're comparing a Bleeding Cool review to the USA Today articles. There is no comparison. Bleeding Cool is usable as a reliable source since they did not publish or work on the comic in any context. USA Today is not since they are the online publishers of the comic. The reason I mentioned that Truitt would be unusable as a source to establish notability is because he's also the one who is responsible for posting the articles that release the new issue, articles which are also supposed to promote the comic. It's his job. I'm not saying he wouldn't be a reliable source for things that aren't about the company itself, but as far as anything AEE goes? He has a conflict of interest in that case, which is why I wouldn't see anything he publishes as a source that would establish notability. He could be used as a primary or trivial source, but his articles cannot show notability for AEE. That's all I'm saying as far as why his articles can't be used. As far as many of your other concerns (inherited notability, etc), I've already put my arguments above. I have no personal vendetta against the company or anyone that works for it. I just saw an article that didn't pass notability guidelines and nominated it. I'm only one person. I can't edit every article on Wikipedia that has ever been made, nor can I revert every vandal's actions on Wikipedia, especially if I don't know about it. It's humanly impossible for me to detect every page that needs work or has been vandalized. If you see such articles, feel free to WP:BEBOLD and pitch in some help yourself rather than chastise me for things that I haven't yet been able to find and edit. If it were possible for me to fix everything, I would. I simply don't have that much time or energy. Not even Jimbo does, and he's the father of Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are responsible for the way that it looks now, I have no problems with the current look. All of the information there is up to date and factual. Regardless of whether the articles can be considered notable or verifiable, the fact that the comics exists is undeniable. The fact that the novels can be searched is undeniable. Other companies in the marketplace have two perhaps three sources. There are now six associated acceptable that deal with the company. I think my biggest problem here is the fact that in this day and age, the choice was destruction over assistance. As an administrator, you have more power than normal users. I cannot fathom the mentality of delete and ask questions later. It makes no sense. The whole goal of distributing knowledge is to make sure that it is right, and that people have access to it. I wold like to believe that is the purpose behind Wikipedia, to help people stay informed. If AEE doesn't have a fast IT guy to update their website ever time a new book comes out, how else will people know what is happening? Considering that it is nearly impossible to find multiple articles at the accepted comic news sources, like CBR and Bleeding Cool, I would have thought that Wikipedia would be that place. That is what I have the hardest time understanding. If you have no real problem, then I don't see why you cannot simply fix and help. Personally, I have no problems with the article now. It also seems that individual pages should be created for the key people, so that information is not cluttering up the company page. I hope that this matter will be resolved soon. I hope that you are happy with the current status, and the current format. If so, I hope that the decision to delete has been rendered moot. It is now an article that gives the basic facts regarding a media company, no more, no less. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SilenceisSterling (talk • contribs) 08:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well... part of the problem is that Wikipedia isn't here to update people on everything every company does. We do inform, but we have to have a requirement on that data by way of notability. If something falls short then it has to be deleted, redirected, or merged into an applicable article. There's always the current option of merging information into Carey's article if all else fails and if anyone wants to help look to see if William Wilson passes notability guidelines and merge into an article for him, that's an option as well. It's just that we can't keep articles that don't pass notability guidelines. It'd be nice if we could, but we can't make an exception for one article and not for the next. And again, I did try to fix the article and what's currently up is pretty much my re-write of the article. Sometimes some articles just can't be saved regardless of how much work anyone puts into it. That's just the way Wikipedia goes. Sometimes we can find alternatives, sometimes we can't. Just because I nominated the article for deletion and still hold that it fails WP:CORP doesn't mean that I didn't try to save it at first. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: We clearly need more opinions here from the third-party users. Currently, the discussion is revolving about the fact whether (i) USA Today can be counted as a primary source (clearly leaning to positive) and (ii) whether the remaining sources are sufficient to create notability according to WP:CORP (in this case, it is identical to WP:GNG).--Ymblanter (talk) 08:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 08:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would continue to argue against the USA Today sources being usable. After all, the vast majority of the USA Today articles are written by the same person who posts the comic updates for the series, a series that is being published online by USA Today. So to reiterate, the same person who is pretty much uploading the series is also writing articles that seem to uniformly praise the company. In my eyes these are pretty much the same as a press release, given that USA Today has a financial interest in having the comic do well as well as a financial interest in promoting the company producing the comic on their website. This is pretty much about the same as HarperCollins writing a book praising an author whose work they're publishing. If this stuff is considered a non-primary source then we should probably start counting press releases as reliable sources as well, because that's essentially what this boils down to. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah- I see that you meant positive as far as it being a primary source rather than it being usable. My bad! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:29, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed, sorry for not being clear.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I implied above, while ordinarily I would consider USA Today a RS, the business relationship between it and AEE (apart from advertising space, which I wouldn't take into account) makes me think that in this case it's not. Miniapolis 14:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The AFD review is simpler than proposed above. WP:GNG requires that the topic receive significant coverage. The article topic is the comic book production studio - a business. The USA Today articles are about the sci-fi comic series produced from the Arch Enemy Entertainment business. The USA Today articles are not about the Arch Enemy Entertainment business, so they do not count towards the business itself meeting WP:N. The comic book production studio itself has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Nobility is not inherited and a business does not inherit notability from USA Today articles written about products produced by that business. Delete. Additional: As for this whole primary source discussion, Wikipedia articles usually rely on information from reliable primary third-party sources and reliable secondary sources. The problem comes when the primary source is a primary first-party source. Where a third-party source is a source of written information about a topic that is independent of that topic, a first-party source is a source of written information about a topic that is not independent of that topic. From Wikipedia:Independent_sources#Summary, "an independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a written topic and therefore it is commonly expected to describe the topic from a disinterested perspective. An interest in a topic is vested where the source holds a financial or legal relationship with the topic."
    If USA Today holds a financial or legal relationship with the Arch Enemy Entertainment business or its products, then USA Today may be a primary first-party source with regard to the Arch Enemy Entertainment business and/or its products. As Tokyogirl79 points out in part above, the sources from USA Today are primary first-party sources, at least with regard to information about the sci-fi comic series because USA Today publishes the Arch Enemy Entertainment comics and has a vested interest in the success of those comics. However, the AFDed article topic is the comic book production studio - a business, and not the Arch Enemy Entertainment comics, so the primary source discussion regarding the comics topic is not so relevant to this AFD. In summary, the USA Today articles are not about the Arch Enemy Entertainment business, so they do not count towards the business itself meeting WP:N. The comic book production studio itself has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Delete. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CORP and WP:GNG and WP:PROMO and WP:ADVERT. Qworty (talk) 03:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not seeing a depth of coverage that would be sufficient enough for the subject to pass WP:CORPDEPTH and I have some WP:PROMO concerns too, not dissimilar to those expressed above. The latter is a WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM sort of problem but the former is not surmountable. Stalwart111 06:08, 28 April 2013 (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/Arch_Enemy_Entertainment&oldid=1137574898"