Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Screenwise (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 keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Screenwise

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notable founder, notable alumni but notability is not inherited. Current refs are either not from reliable sources or passing mentions. WP:BEFORE has been applied in earlier nomination(s), but again there is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject for this business enterprise. Shirt58 (talk) 12:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There do appear to be a few legitimate sources in this article, such as the article from Time Out Sydney and the brief mention in The Morning Bulletin. In any event, a couple of sentences about the school would certainly be justified in the article about its founder. So I'd suggest a merge and redirect to Denise Roberts.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The added sources clearly show that this article is nothing like it was during the previous nomination. The new sources are indeed reliable and go into a significant amount of depth on the subject, like the Time Out article. And it is also independent, so I don't understand the nominator's reasoning. Silver seren^C 20:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete The only bit of significant coverage is the Time Out piece but that is just a local piece in a street press magazine. Not enough for WP:CORP. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep The coverage mentioned below is mostly trivial passing mentions but a few are good coverage about Screenwise, including national magazines. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's plenty of coverage independent of the school itself to meet WP:GNG. Newcastle Herald, Canterbury Bankstown Express, Tabrett Bethell’s Films, Film Ink, Inside Film, Last.fm, Socialite Life, Sydney Morning Herald, Sydney Weekly Courier, Tabrett Bethell Films, The Daily Telegraph, The Footy Show - Channel 9, TV Week, and Woman's Day, reposted at Screenwise Press Room, provide significant coverage. In addition, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL brings up even more source material. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:49, 23 February 2011 (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.