Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Range Studios

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. Mangojuice^talk 13:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a small, non-notable graphics company. It is maintained by a single user and reads like an advertisement with no critical insite or references. It sets a bad example for any small start up with a few web films who wants to use Wiki as a free billboard. James Gordon 22:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)(This nomination was this editor's first edit)[reply]

• Delete as above. Also delete the unnotable film The Meatrix from the same people. DJ Clayworth 22:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Full Disclosure: I am a Free Range employee. Free Range might not be a name as well known as the larger communications firms Porter Novelli or Fleishman Hillard, which both have entries here in Wiki, but ask almost any non-profit organization with a presence in DC, and they will know Free Range. They will know the Meatrix. In the world of non-profit advocacy, Free Range has and is playing a significant role that's worthy of notation here in Wiki. In this sense, Free Range is not "non-notable." By putting our entry up on Wiki, we embrace the idea that anyone can edit our entry. We hope they do. But by removing our entry, I'd argue we're missing documenting an important player within the heart of America's progressive non-profit community. -- Susan Finkelpearl, Saturday, Sept. 2, 2006, 9:47 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sfinkelpearl (talk • contribs) .(This editor has only contributed to this AfD and the article under consideration)
• Keep.I'd like to comment in defense of this article and the signifigance of Free Range Studio's presence in both the non-profit world and the popular culture world. From the definition and guidelines of the Wikipedia Notabillity article for Company's and Corporations: "A company or corporation is notable if it meets any of the following criteria: The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." The Free Range article has been updated with over a dozen citations and references from independent, non-trivial sources discussing Free Ranges' works. A google search of Free Range Studios will yield hundreds of articles discussing Free Range and its work. These hits range from major news papers and film festivals all the way down to personal blogs and online forums. Clearly there is a large and independent interest in the notable work of Free Range. The Meatrix created an internet viral phenomenon, was viewed over 10 million times and won a Webby Award in 2005. [1]Eriq Wities 20:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wities (talk • contribs) .(This editor has contributed only to this AfD, the article under consideration, and closely related articles)
• Keep. In addition to the posting above, I'd like to also comment in defense of this article. As a person rather well-versed in the non-profit technology community, Free Range has clearly met the Wikipedia standard of "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works". A huge number of individuals in in the progressive non-profit sector has been touched by one of Free Range's works, including Store Wars which has been published and commented on by everyone from About.com to Business Week. To delete this entry would be slap in the face to the non-profit community. -- Ryan Ozimek, Monday, Sept. 4, 2006, 18:32 EDT —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.156.164.47 (talk • contribs) .(This comment is this editor's only edit)
• Comment. I'd like to now point out that user "Eriq Wities", who is defending this article, has also created an article about himself. This Free Range is a virus spreading non notable articles. I believe it needs to be stopped now. Please vote delete on this article as well as on the deletion page I've created for Eriq Wities. Thank you. --James Gordon 07:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)'[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Herostratus 07:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Every single commentor so far, including the nominator, with the exception of one Delete vote by actual user DJ Clayworth, has contributed only to this AfD or related articles. So I think we are starting with a clean slate, here. Are there any disinterested parties willing to take a look at this? Herostratus

• Delete Currently it's spam that fails WP:CORP with some tinges of WP:VANITY as well by the employees working on the article. 205.157.110.11 07:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. After initially being skeptical, having read the entire article and going through the sources I can say say this is a notable company that passes WP:CORP. It needs a NPOV rewrite though as in some places it reads as if it was written by someone who works for the company. VegaDark 07:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep and Strong Rewrite - per VegaDark. Marginal on the usual WP:CORP criteria but the company's projects appear exceptional. My Alt Account 07:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notability not shown. Sock/meatpuppetry suggests spamming intent behind article. --Nlu (talk) 09:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article reads like it was written by an advertising firm. It's clearly not WP:NPOV and it looks a lot like WP:ADS. Many of the claims lack verifiability and could be considered original research. It's not very encyclopedic. Publishing both a "Mission Statement" and a "Vision Statement", in addition to a listing of employees and an accompanying image, all seem a bit WP:VANITY. It appears that this company has produced some interesting material, but so have countless other advertising firms around the world. I'm not seeing anything particularly distinguishing here, despite the numerous examples of WP:PEACOCK used to describe their work. If the article could be rewritten in a more neutral, less commercial tone, I would vote to keep it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Authalic (talk • contribs) .

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.