Talk:Studio71

Studio 71 assault on youtube is shit, stop you bullshit.
- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.85.120.13 (talk • contribs)


 * Thank you for that erudite contribution Mr Shakespeare but maybe it would be best to stick to the sonnets in future? --DanielRigal (talk) 22:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

But seriously folks, the criticisms
We have some unreferenced critical content in the article that was removed by somebody who appears to be an insider. That is two big problems in one. Unreferenced negative content is really bad. Insider editing for reputation management purposes is really bad. I'm not sure where to draw the line on this. I have softened the wording considerably and tagged it as needing a reference. I went looking for a reference and found a few non-RS sources grumbling but not much else.

I suggest that we leave it like this for a day or two but if nobody can show an RS reference for the criticism then we should remove it.

I would also suggest that this demonstrates why having a Wikipedia article is something of a double-edged sword and why those who feel they can use Wikipedia as a promotional tool are so often disappointed by the outcomes. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * It would be nice if it wasn't just me, Studio 71's Marketing Manager and the pottymouthed IP above looking at this article. I'll see if I can add some additional projects. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Spam
This article has been written in marcom speak since its creation (regardless of the recent minor paid activity). Content such as Studio71 develops, produces, and distributes original programming across social media, television and film and Several months after the rebranding into Studio71, Seven Bucks Productions and Studio71 partnered together  could have been written by their marketing department (and might have been!), TonyBallioni (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Advertisement tag
Hey guys, Studio71 (as you know) is a client of my firm. Would you be open to reviewing a revised draft of this page? I've read your notes and can review to clean up the marketing speak. Let me know. Thanks. JacobMW (talk) 00:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Pings fixed., use instead of [brackets].  Sky  Warrior  01:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks
 * I've created a revised draft of the Studio71 page here . Let me know your thoughts. This is my first time making an attempt such as this so bear with me. Thank you! Would much appreciate feedback. Would now be a time to add an [| edit request template]? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JacobMW (talk • contribs) 01:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have added an edit request template so an editor can review this. Note to the editor, Studio71 is a paid client of my firm Mister Wiki (disclosure has been made above on the talk page for this article). I would not like to directly edit the article with my proposed fixes, so I've created a revised draft of the Studio71 page here to be reviewed so that there may be consideration of removing the tag. Thank you for your time. JacobMW (talk) 19:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , Replacing articles wholesale like this is not usually how we do things, unless the existing article is little more than a one- or two-sentence stub. That's not the case here. For an existing article of non-trivial length you should present a specific recommendation in the form of "change X to Y." (It's OK to make two or three such recommendations at once but not a big list of them.) Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I just glanced at the draft out of curiosity. Apart from the unnecessary pictures, the main thing that struck me is how the phrase "partnered with" fails to convey any real specific meaning. Then I realised that these are actually both failings of the existing article and so I removed the pictures from that. This makes Shock Brigade Harvester Boris's point quite forcefully. Comparing a complete draft with a complete article is just too confusing. So, while I know it is a bit laborious, but we really do need to do it in the way he says. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. I'll adjust my edit requests to reflect this. Daniel - since the pictures have already been clearned, the thinking was "why not just include them?". That's fine if you don't see things that way. Be in touch with some updates. Thanks for walking me through the ropes, I'm learning everyday. JacobMW (talk) 23:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Have put a few edit requests below, let's just start with these for now. Thanks for the feedback on best practices for this. Appreciate the patience. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.


 * INTRODUCTION
 * Remove "Studio71 is also partnered with Twitter, Amazon, Watchable and go90. " Vague statement and cannot be expanded enough in the introduction section.
 * Remove "Studio71 is also partnered with Twitter, Amazon, Watchable and go90. " Vague statement and cannot be expanded enough in the introduction section.


 * HISTORY
 * Remove "where online video was "picking up momentum". Fluffy / promotional.
 * Remove "where online video was "picking up momentum". Fluffy / promotional.


 * AS STUDIO71
 * Change "Several months after the rebranding into Studio71, Seven Bucks Productions and Studio71 partnered together to create a Youtube channel for actor Dwayne Johnson. Studio71 also partnered with Lionsgate to release its first global production, Natural Born Pranksters, starring VitalyzdTV, Roman Atwood, and Dennis Roady, which was released on April Fools' Day of 2016. " to "After Studio71's rebranding, the company began working with Seven Bucks Productions to create a YouTube channel for actor Dwayne Johnson. Studio71 also partnered with Lionsgate to release its first global production, Natural Born Pranksters, starring VitalyzdTV, Roman Atwood, and Dennis Roady, which was released on April Fools' Day of 2016.
 * Change "In January 2017, French media group TF1 and Italian media company Mediaset invested a total of $53 million in Studio71. Studio71 began expanding to France and Italy following the investment. Despite Studio71 Chairman, Michael Green stepping down on March 16, 2017, the company's expansion into Europe has been successful, advertising on European television shows like The Voice of Germany and appealing to millions of European households through traditional media platforms like television. " to "In January 2017, French media group TF1 and Italian media company Mediaset invested a total of $53 million in Studio71. Studio71 began expanding to France and Italy following the investment. Shortly after, Michael Green stepped down from the company on March 16, 2017.
 * Modified both paragraphs to be less promotional sounding and took out anything that was unnecessary.
 * Modified both paragraphs to be less promotional sounding and took out anything that was unnecessary.


 * Apologies for the broken placements of the references, wasn't sure how to fix. JacobMW (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Since no one has responded to this, I took some time to clean up my formatting a bit. See below for edit requests since I have a COI, thank you!

Thanks! There's definitely a little bit more work that could be done to tone down the promotional language, but will just start with these changes. JacobMW (talk) 16:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC) ✅  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   13:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC) Thanks, ! Appreciate you taking time out of your day to help out with this. anything else that stands out to you in regards to the tags you guys added to this article? JacobMW (talk) 16:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Its still written in marketing speak with words that convey no meaning but are positive. Basically every sentence that includes the word partnered or generated needs to be rewritten to be neutral. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Got it, thanks for the notes. Will review and be in touch. JacobMW (talk) 17:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Second edit request
Per 's suggestion, I've added a few more edit requests below and have intentionally taken out or edited phrases involving the words partner or generate. I have disclosed above that Studio71 is a client of mine and I have a WP:COI. Thank you for your time. If I missed anything formatting-wise with this edit request, please let me know so I can fix. JacobMW (talk) 17:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * ✅ Looks good. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you, ! Very much appreciated. thoughts?
 * Please let me know if you see any other eye-sores that can be fixed so that the tags can be removed. Thank you for the time and effort put into this project. JacobMW (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

COI edit request - tags
Hello! Studio71 is a client of my paid editing firm. I've made a couple of edit requests on this talk page to clean up the marketing speak of the article (as you can see above) and everyone has been incredibly helpful which is much appreciated. The final thing I wanted to ask about was just if someone could review the page to see if the tags that are on there still apply and if anything should be cleaned up? Thank you! JacobMW (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * As TonyBallioni is the editor who added those tags, a discussion of removing them with other editors of the community might be deficient without his key input. Pursuing the answer to this from him would be a good option for you to take.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   21:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've removed the advert tag for now. I didn't place the paid tag, but there is ongoing conversation at WT:COI as to whether articles with paid contributions should have this. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks and ! JacobMW (talk) 21:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree with removing the advert tag. There's still a good few PR-ish turns of phrase ("operate under a unified global banner", etc) and details that nobody cares about except the corporate insiders who think such things are important. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 06:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I’ve restored per your concerns. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, will submit another edit request and let you know when it's ready to be reviewed. JacobMW (talk) 15:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

New edit requests
Hello, all. Per the discussion on this talk page, I've taken out some more language that might be seen as promotional. Would very, very, very much appreciate anyone who can get around to reviewing these edit requests. I've also broken up some of the paragraphs and have added in some missing citations. Thank you so much. JacobMW (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Lead:
 * Update:


 * Comment: The offices are already shown in the infobox. Adding them here is unnecessarily redundant. (Clarified: Policy allows it to stay, usually in the main body, and not the lead.) Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   22:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)




 * Comment:Clients belong outside of the lead.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   22:19, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * History:
 * Update:


 * Comment: Again, founders are in the infobox . (Clarified: Policy allows it to stay.)  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   22:21, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: The "History", "As Studio 71" and "Content" headings should all be merged into a singular entry, with their contents all re-written as a bulleted timeline, placed under a new, nested heading of History, Milestones (i.e., "History" as a 2nd level heading immediately followed by "Milestones" as a 3rd level heading). If clients are to be mentioned in this timeline, they should appear chronologically in the bulleted list along with the other facts (i.e., "In 2014, the company acquired ____ as a client.") Please note: As there is already a listing of the company's films here, I cannot guarantee that any listing of clients won't be removed in the future by other editors who may view it as promotional.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   22:34, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks as always for the feedback, . I was trying to salvage the article in its current state, but I suppose an entire revamp might make sense. In regard to your comments about infobox, it seems to be the norm that the same information that is mentioned in infoboxes is also mentioned within the body of the article (i.e every other company on Wikipedia). Please correct me if I'm wrong. Thank you! JacobMW (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Technically, you are correct. Information should be placed in the text and given "at-a-glance" in the infobox. "The information should still be present in the main text, partly because it may not be possible for some readers to access the contents of the infobox.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   22:55, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I am willing to implement this proposal, providing it carries the changes I suggested above. If you wish, kindly revise your proposal accordingly, and resubmit it at your earliest convenience. Regards,  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   00:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, . I will do that ASAP. Should I place it in here when it's ready? JacobMW (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

New edit requests 2.0
per your suggestions, I've updated my requests in a new format, incorporating some of your notes but also formatting it as I see it working best. Much appreciate your time. Let me know your thoughts.

Reply
✅ History section coverted to timeline. Please note: I've removed the Advert template once again, but as a courtesy, Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) will be notified and asked whether or not this is acceptable. If they still disapprove and wish it to remain, they are free to add it again to the page. Striken out section above removed, as these films and their dates already appear in the list of films. 'Further reading' and 'Initiatives' sections removed.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   20:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, ! JacobMW (talk) 21:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * While we're here... what are your thoughts on removing the paid contributions tag? The article has been significantly improved since you've added the tag. It'd be a great gift for the holidays! Let me know your thoughts. JacobMW (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Minor COI edit requests
Hello! Almost done here. Just some simple COI edit requests from my end that I hope we can quickly knock out. Normally I'd structure with /code but they're very simple. Thank you, thank you, thank you whoever can help out with this:
 * Family Fun Pack is no longer a client of Studio71. Generally this kind of news is not publicized but happy to provide evidence for this if need be (however that can be done).
 * Can the History section be structured as paragraphs instead of bullet points (example).
 *  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   00:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As I'm interested in always improving how I work on Wikipedia, could you quote the specific part of WP:MOS that it is in violation of? Yes, if you could remove the bullet points that would be much appreciated. I've never seen a Wikipedia article structured like that which is my personal (and the client's) point of reference. JacobPace (talk) 03:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * WP:PARAGRAPH states "One-sentence paragraphs are unusually emphatic, and should be used sparingly. Articles should rarely, if ever, consist solely of such paragraphs." MOS:LINEBREAKS states "The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text ... Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading; in such circumstances, it may be preferable to use bullet points." MOS:EMBED also covers the use of lists in the main text. Regards,  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   10:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * thank for taking the time to dig this up and reference this for me. In that case, I will likely resubmit a new request so these can be expanded. Thank you. JacobPace (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Happy New Year, sir! What are your thoughts on the article? Time to remove the maintenance tag? Thank you. JacobPace (talk) 17:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The maintenance tag was added by . I think it was  (I think) who also wanted the previous advert tag on after I removed it. They would be the people to ask for thoughts on it, not me. I've gone ahead and removed the client above. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated . Hope you have a great year. JacobPace (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * - What are your thoughts on the article? Can we remove the maintenance tag now? Thank you and HNY. JacobPace (talk) 03:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

January COI edit request
Minor COI edit requests below since Studio71 is a client of my paid editing service. Thank you to whoever can get around to reviewing this. JacobPace (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Pretty minor stuff, just want to update the 'History' section with the copy below ideally. I corrected some inaccurate information and added some context:

✅ The underlined passage was implemented.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   17:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . Why just the underlined passage? JacobPace (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * 1) The highlighted passage implemented was incorrect. I've changed it to the correct passage.
 * 2) The information on the founding of the company is already included in the article.
 * 3) Information on how the Youtube Original Channel Initiative was funded is germane to the article on Youtube.
 * 4) Ms. Ballinger's make-up tips are not germane to the article.
 * 5) Information on ProSeiben's aquisitions along with the rest of the information is already included in the article.
 * Regards,  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   18:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Understood, and thanks for fixing the last sentence. I think I may have submitted what I was proposing incorrectly. I'll try again through another request. JacobPace (talk) 16:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

New COI edit request
Hello! Just a few items here. Main things are adding updated information on Studio71's new merger and also adding information to the body in an attempt to get rid of the bullet point format. Thank you! JacobPace (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

thanks for getting back, and sorry for the delay in responding. All answers below. JacobPace (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Infobox:
 * Update 'Parent' section to include Red Arrow:

 Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   17:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Will check in on this and get back to you.


 * Lead:
 * Update to include Red Arrow's current involvement:

The statement In December 2017, ProSiebenSat.1 merged Studio71 with its production arm Red Arrow Entertainment Group to create Red Arrow Studios. Please indicate what is incorrect about this statement.
 * Comment: Nothing is incorrect, but we want to add it to the lead since it's a pretty significant change in the company's structure and should reflect as such in the lead.


 * History
 * First paragraph
 * Add to sentence: Prior to founding the company, Collective Digital Studios operated as a management company and was known as The Collective.

indicates that Collective Digital Studio was founded in 2011 by Michael Green,[3] Reza Izad and Dan Weinstein as a YouTube multi-channel network. Your proposal incates that The Collective begat CDS, but your reference states that one part of CDS was minimized in order to focus on another part, while the individuals involved remained the same. Please elaborate how an internal refocusing of priorities is germane to the article.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   17:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: I will rewrite this and propose it again. From my understanding, the company was operating as management company then shifted focus and also changed its name all before becoming Studio71.


 * Second paragraph
 * Remove 'Also' from first sentence: In 2012, as part of the YouTube Original Channel Initiative, CDS was funded to create BlackBoxTV, a horror and science fiction YouTube channel.
 * Add to sentence: The channel launched on Friday the 13th. Actors such as Bill Bellamy, Drake Bell and Goran Visnjic signed to be featured in content for the channel.

The source explains virtually what is said in the text. Friday the 13th may be added, but you did not specify which Friday the 13th. There were 3 in 2012.}} 17:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Awesome. The exact date was April 13, 2012.


 * ✅  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   13:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks, ! JacobPace (talk) 16:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Jan 23 COI edit requests
Hello! Just requesting some edits for my client Studio71. Thank you in advance whoever can get around to this. JacobPace (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Partially implemented. Additional changes to the article were made. Please see the edit summary history for more information. Regards,  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   10:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . Thought it says 'partially implemented', none of my edit requests were really addressed nor did I get feedback on any of them. Is there a reason for this? JacobPace (talk) 17:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Accuracy
I've made some edits to the page in an attempt to make it look a little more like an encyclopaedia article and a little less like a PRNewswire press release; those edits included removal of some gratuitous name-dropping, some trivia, and a good deal of puffery. I re-wrote some of the content for tone, but did not change the basic factual information presented nor check the sources for reliability (and that certainly needs doing). I'm concerned that the article is completely wrong about several of those basic facts: If the name of the company is now Red Arrow Studios (as this says it is), should this page be moved to that title? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC); edited 17:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It is described as "American", but is actually owned by media companies in Germany, France and Italy. What's American about that?
 * Our page says (following my ce) that "the name was changed to Studio71", but this source says that Studio71 was formed in Germany in 2013, and this one that Collective Digital Studio was merged into it. That is not the same story as told in our article.
 * And in that case it probably was not founded by Michael Green either.
 * Hey, . If you can just hang tight, I will verify this information directly with the company. I'll get back to you ASAP. JacobPace (talk) 16:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , please try to understand this: Wikipedia cares not one whit what the company thinks or what the company wants. In this project, volunteer editors write articles based on what is reported in independent reliable sources, using their best judgement and a process of discussion and consensus to decide what content will be included and what will be omitted. That may not be a perfect system, but it's the system we have chosen to follow. Your antics on this page are a complete waste of everybody's time, including your own: we simply are not going to allow the company or its paid agents to micro-manage this page or any other, and any attempt to do so is futile. Please read WP:PAYTALK, and take to heart what it says about WP:DISRUPTIVE behaviour. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Still reads like a paid article
A near-universal feature of paid articles is that they include excessive detail on corporate minutiae such as financing and otherwise non-notable personnel. Trouble is, if we cut out that stuff there's not much left. Any ideas? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , I've just re-written a good deal of it in order to reflect a little more closely what the sources actually say about the company. This is absolutely not my field of expertise or indeed of interest, so if I've made mistakes, used poor sources, or introduced any of those "minutiae", please just remove them. This thing was or is apparently the biggest of its kind in German, so is likely to be notable (you'd have thought there'd have been some more solid coverage of it than I've been able to find). If you think it isn't, AfD is always an option, of course, as is a redirect to ProSiebenSat.1 Media. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I would support a redirect to ProSiebenSat.1 Media. With the Studio71 article already being in such a stub-like position, the company's German origins are an important relationship to point out, as that relationship potentially undercuts any claims to autonomy that the Studio71 article may have.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   20:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd support a redirect here. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support redirect. This studio has been consolidated into Red Arrow Studios, which redirects to ProSiebenSat.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. Wish I'd thought to suggest it before I spent time rewriting, though. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added a sentence about it to ProSiebenSat.1 Media, please improve or expand at will. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This article is borderline acceptable before so I shortened the material. It seems like a notable company with all of the sources mentioning it. --Frmorrison (talk) 00:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As you can see,, the consensus here was to redirect. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:11, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The article was improved in my last edit with additional sources. The Studio71 company is a subsidiary of a company, so it can have independent notability. Perhaps can look at the revised version? --Frmorrison (talk) 01:47, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I haven't seen a revised version, unless it's the one that was working on before the redirect. That's the only one I saw.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   02:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC) , I think means, which added two extra references, one the company itself, and the other something called "Adweek". Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 02:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * From my perspective, this has nothing encyclopedic; there is no knowledge, nothing to learn from. Some facts stating that the company was founded, got bought and sold several times, and has some content.  Some of that said three times due to the artificial division created by the "history" header plus the infobox.   So with what we have it is way more  appropriate in the parent company article.
 * That said, if somebody was interested in businesses and how they work, set to work on this, and generated a useful kind of scholarly history of the company (what challenges did they face, how did they meet them, where did they screw up, how did they recover, where is their real innovation and how did others react) and expand it over there to the point where it should be split, that  would make sense.   But this ...no.Jytdog (talk) 02:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I was just going to say, the newer version looks just like Just's version that he worked on, which is actually a pretty good version, it has outside sources, its written in prose, in other words its a good effort. And i'm wondering why did we vote to redirect this version. So I'm also wondering if my desire for a redirect was actually due to the inordinate frequency of edit requests that seem to arise from this article. If that was a part of it then I guess it wasnt a fair decision on my part because the version that Just and Frmorrison came up with isnt so bad. But then I also agree with Jytdog that a lot of this is just minutiae overkill that may not be relevant 10 years from now.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   02:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I’m likewise concerned about the encyclopedic notability of the company given that it has now been absorbed into a much larger company. Even the improved version of the article does not indicate why the company is unique or encyclopedic amoung its contemporaries. It may be a WP:CRYSTAL violation on my part, but can we expect significant improvements to an article concerning a company that falls under 2 rungs of a corporate umbrella?Potential editors also have the option to add information to the article of the parent company. This would be my preferred option, as the layout of the ProSiebenSat invites the addition of subsections about divisions of the company. SamHolt6 (talk) 03:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The fact that this company distributes content from big names such as The Rock and it has lots of views of their content. This article may help out someone looking for help with distribution. It should be seperate from its parent because it does enough work on its own to show notability to have its own article. I agree that before I was involved recently the article had many issues but those have mostly been addressed. --Frmorrison (talk) 14:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * These are not valid reasons for an article. Wikipedia isn't a classified's section of a local newspaper. PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to revive the discussion here. I still don't fully understand why this page got deleted and merged with its parent company, as there are several comparable companies who stand with their own pages even though they are owned outright by larger entities due to their independent notability (e.g AwesomenessTV). Anyhow, Studio71 has been the topic of several notable publications:, , , . If I worked on it, could this page possibly reviewed and considered for restoration? What part of WP:CORP does this not meet? Thanks for your time and consideration. JacobPace (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You're a paid editor who founded a paid editing site. Are you being paid to continue to advocate for this having a separate article, as some of your associates were? PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment -- ...as there are several comparable companies who stand with their own pages... is a classic please-keep-my-article argument at AfD from COI editors. It does not carry much weight, unfortunately. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Its also the exact reason why WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS well, exists.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting back. PeterTheFourth - yes, was hired by my firm and now since this article has been deleted and merged with its parent company, I have stepped in to see why this occurred as the company is fully independently notable and still stands as an independent entity to this today. K.e.coffman - sure, that might not be the strongest argument, but according to WP:CORP: A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization. By just a simple Google search, you can find several independent sources discussing this company in great detail? Are there any specific holes in my argument that I can address? I don't understand why this article shouldn't be restored. JacobPace (talk) 15:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify since I was pinged, I was compensated for non-content edits to Studio71 as detailed at - a minor article title tweak and a PD-text logo update.  Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  15:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That wasn't my question, we already know Salvidrim was being paid because he was stupid enough to stake his adminship on it. My question was- are you being paid to advocate for this being a separate article? PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Replying to your concerns Jacob. You quoted from WP:CORP, which also encompass WP:INHERITORG, which states "An organization may be notable, but individual members (or groups of members) do not "inherit" notability due to their membership. A corporation may be notable, but its subsidiaries do not "inherit" notability from being owned by the corporation". This is relevant now that Studio71 has been consolidated into Red Arrow Studios, which in turn is a subset of ProSiebenSat.1 Media. It also causes me to bring up WP:PAGEDECIDE, which states "Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page". I find this to be pertinent given Studio71's purchase by ProSiebenSat, especially when considering the many editors whom have edited content out of the article in question. It is important to remember that ProSiebenSat.1_Media exists and can be added to. Additionally, google search results are not a viable way to determine a subject's notability. SamHolt6 (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * - Yes, I am a paid editor being paid to advocate this a separate article as is declared on my userpage. Would ProSiebenSat.1_Media be a pertinent place to add more information on that company's history? Thank you. JacobPace (talk) 17:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

New draft
Hey all, just wanted to send through a new draft I've been working on for this article (you can find it here). Frankly, I'm a lot less concerned with having this article published immediately (definitely not the case) and more just wanting to learn how I can improve this draft, why this deserves to be merged with its parent company (or not), etc. In terms of the actual structure of the company, Studio71 has not merged with Red Arrow to create one company but rather it's just a company underneath a new parent organization (underneath ProSieben) called Red Arrow Studios. I want to learn here more than anything. No rush at all, I appreciate everyone's time here. Would love to get some feedback on this new draft and if anyone thinks it'd be suitable for an independent article. JacobPace (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , I very strongly encourage you to stop flagellating this particular cadaver, immediately and completely; I think that failure to do so is likely to lead fairly directly to WP:ANI. I've looked at your draft, and it appears to be undiluted nonsense pretty much from beginning to end. If you want to read a brief history of the company, you can do so . I don't pretend that that is either complete or completely accurate, but I'm confident that the basic facts are correct (year and place it was started, names of the people involved, acquisitions etc) and thus that the information you present is definitely and demonstrably false. I do advise you not to reply to this. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: Indefinitely protect this article and its Talk page
I'm proposing that this article and its Talk page be indefinitely fully protected from editing. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Unfortunately I think it's now come to that. Several of us have tried to counsel Jacob, to little avail. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Wiki policies being what they are, there's no other way to prevent the continual steady poke and prod of paid editors. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. I can see why this was suggested, but I don't think a full protection request is likely to be accepted – especially if it is for permanent full protection. I imagine the answer here would be along the lines of "no, talk-pages are for talk, there's no evidence of the kind of massive disruption that might justify protection". Realistically, the continual demands of the paid editor are more at the level of a dripping tap than a hurricane. Several people have asked or advised him to stop; if he doesn't and this goes to WP:ANI there's a strong possibility of a WP:NOTHERE consensus. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)