Talk:Act III Communications

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because it uses only footnote references and has been extensively researched and annotated. The content being cited is merely a list of record labels owned by Concord Music Group which is a matter of pubic record. There is no copyrighted material in the article itself and the citation of copyrighted material by way of footnote reference is the an actual requirement of Wikipedia articles. This page contains substantial information which is not duplicated elsewhere on Wikipedia and which is unique to this page and which has been the subject of extensive research and is properly footnoted and referenced. --HansDieterUlrich (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The duplication reports in the speedy deletion request tell a different story. Beside that, the article reads as an advertisement. The fact that you returned the promo (and copyvio) is a strong indication that that is on purpose. The Banner talk 22:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Almost all the "duplicates" cited are the names of the companies involved.  The list of artists and list of labels are drawn from Concord Records publicly available website and literature.  The citation for the merger is from a Concord Music press release - material made freely available to the public and footnoted here.  Using the same name for a company is not a copyright violation.  Using public information is not a copyright violation.  This entry corrects the names of the various companies from their sloppy usage elsewhere in Wikipedia and correctly identifies the dates of investment and divestiture, as well as containing material new information on the identity of the purchasers, the prices paid and the dates of the transactions.  Deleting this material for using the name "Concord Records" to identify a company called "Concord Records" is an incorrect application.  As for being an advertisement - an advertisement for what?  Act III Communications is not a commercial entity, it is a privately held holding company which comes into the news from time to time and for which articles such as this are valuable resources. It does not sell or market any products and I have no association with the entity or any of its principals.  The accusation of "advertisement" is not called for.  To call this article an advertisement applies a standard which would name every article in Wikipedia as an advertisement - I think the term is being used in a glib fashion.   Act III Communications had multiple shareholders other than Norman Lear although he is the only one famous personally.  To simple consider this information a re-direct to the "Norman Lear" page is improper and loses a material amount of new and valuable information in the process.  I am now making conforming changes to correct errors in related entries but there is little purpose to that if the main entry is to be deleted for no apparent reason.HansDieterUlrich (talk) 23:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... (your reason here) --Trackinfo (talk) 01:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

There is significance to the subject. The current writing of the article might be copyvio, I can't defend that though it can be pared down to essential information without being a copyvio. But this vast of a venture, headed by Norman Lear is inherently significant. Trackinfo (talk) 01:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because it represents an extensively researched article with voluminous footnotes and references. It contains no copyrighted material. The Copyvios robot checking program has merely identified that the names of the records labels are the names of the record labels. It has also identified that the names of the recording artists under contract to Concord Music are famous people. Similarly, it has tagged the names of movies in the library of Village Roadshow which by definition will be the same no matter who lists them. The primary document that is being compared is in fact a press release which is quoted and correctly footnoted in the article. The loss of this article will eradicate much useful information which is not readily available anywhere else. What this analysis has done, more than anything else, is demonstrate the shortcomings of the use of robots as decision making tools.--HansDieterUlrich (talk) 05:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I would like to add to this comment that the information regarding the ownership of Tractebel from 1989 to 1991 is a material new fact regarding this company which has never appeared in any stories covering this company for the last twenty years at least. HansDieterUlrich (talk) 05:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Act III Communications. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150220164355/http://lambertmediagroup.com/LambertMediaGroup_Overview.pdf to http://www.lambertmediagroup.com/LambertMediaGroup_Overview.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141101222123/http://www.concordmusicgroup.com/news/concord-music-group-village-roadshow-pictures-and-act-iii-communications/ to http://www.concordmusicgroup.com/news/concord-music-group-village-roadshow-pictures-and-act-iii-communications/
 * Added tag to http://www.jazzreview.com/index.php/blues/item/14347

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Act III Communications. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130116172638/http://news.starbucks.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=48 to http://news.starbucks.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=48

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)