Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brownmark Films


 * 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. This is a very messy AFD, so I had to evaluate each and every discussion. With the keepers, it's seems just because they created the internet mine, therefore Notability is inherited, but on the contrary it isn't thus I discounted those. "Also seems notable to me" isn't a reason to keep any article. The few remainding discussion is about the sourcing. Looking at the sourcing, the first link is a reliable source, but to the video not the company. The second source is a promotional website, therefore not reliable, also and has nothing to do with the company. The third source is YouTube, not reliable, and the fourth source was a interview with the founders of the video in a local entertament magazine, nothing with the company as well and not really "significant coverage".

Finding Consensus in AFD is by policy based reasoning, and the keep/merges doesn't evaluate the sourcing enough while the delete side does it, and those were rebutted wrong. The company "itsself" never had the reliable sourcing, and none can't be found, therfore the article needs to be deleted. But in the future the article can be recreated with reliable sources dealing with the company. A redirect won't hurt as well. Secret account 13:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Brownmark Films

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Notability not established. Suggest merging article with parent production company Special Entertainment. SERSeanCrane (talk) 16:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC) 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Close nomination. Suggesting mergers is supposed to be done at Requested mergers. - Mgm|(talk) 19:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. To be clear, I suggest outright deletion of the article. If merging makes more sense, so be it, but I'm not sure this production company is of note to anyone but the author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SERSeanCrane (talk • contribs) 03:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge. Rather confusing nomination. If the company is known undertaking of another notable organization, I don't see any problem with the merger. LeaveSleaves talk 16:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Needs more than the one article on the creator of What What in the Butt. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are noteworthy external links about the company and several internal links as well. Shatner1 (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This production company has been written about in several traditional mediums, and has created a viral video which is itself considered notable by wikipedia. Merging with the other article seems odd because I'm not sure how notable the other company is compared to this one. 76.230.248.133 (talk) 23:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * — 76.230.248.133 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment. Could you add those sources, then?SERSeanCrane (talk) 07:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I added a little more information to the article, although I feel like notability was already established before the article was put up for deletion. The article is concise, noteworthy, and has a lot of internal links, so I'm not sure why it's being singled out. Shatner1 (talk) 04:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * keep we don't know that one company is the "parent" of the other. apparently this company makes videos for/with samwell. they have a popular utube channel. the article does not seem blatently self-promotional. just a simple chunk of wikiinfo about who who behind samwell and his vids. merging would make this info less clear, harder to dig for. just my 2 centimes.. 32.145.41.229 (talk) 18:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * — 32.145.41.229 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 09:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 03:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Three re-listings?  Wouldn't it make more sense to just close this as no consensus? Resolute 03:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to concur with this assessment. No consensus would really be the most appropriate avenue at this time. — BQZip01 —  talk 22:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think plenty have weighed in to reach some sort of consensus by now (8 December). SERSeanCrane (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge. I can't really see this passing WP:CORP.  Company with one popular-on-youtube video and a small handful of other related but less-successful youtube videos. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I added some more information to the article. Three re-listings seems like overkill. How long does an article stay up for deletion? It's been listed for a few weeks. Shatner1 (talk) 22:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm not sure imdb entries suffice for establishing notability. I may be wrong, though...anyone?SERSeanCrane (talk) 00:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the article references a supposed YouTube "partnership," as well as a non-notable internet tabloid as the source of its notability. The parent company, Special Entertainment, references the tabloid as its major independent source as well. Maybe they should both be afd'd. SERSeanCrane (talk) 01:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Also: the referenced tabloid is no longer operating. (see mkeonline.com)
 * Comment. SUPPOSED YouTube Partnership? The company is listed as a Partner on YouTube's site. Furthermore, anyone with ads on their channel is a YouTube Partner and all of the company's videos have ads. Shatner1 (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why does this partnership constitute notability? From what you've described, seemingly, anyone can become a partner. SERSeanCrane (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't constitute notability, but it adds to notability. To become a Partner with YouTube you have to have multiple videos with an unusually large number of views, and you must be accepted into the YouTube Partnership Program after review from a rather strict application process. Shatner1 (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Furthermore. Why do you deem MKE Magazine a non-notable internet tabloid? It's a print (printed on paper!) magazine that was put out by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the largest newspaper in Wisconsin.
 * Also: Plenty of noteworthy publications are no longer operating. The article is still available on the internet and will remain there indefinitely.
 * Comment Gosh, I hope inclusion in IMDB doesn't establish notability. That would be like every U.S. lawyer being notable because they're all listed in Martindale-Hubbell, or every person with a landline phone being notable because they're all listed in the phone book. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't establish notability, though it might verify such an assertion if otherwise sourced. No matter though, as I have replaced the IMDB reference with a more suitable one and moved IMDB moved down to external links.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. While What What (In the Butt) was an instant classic, and probably merits coverage, this production company is WP:ONEVENT at best. No significant third party coverage of the company itself. Bongo  matic  01:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Significant coverage has been added since your comment.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Some notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. From WP:Corp - ...attention solely by local media is not an indication of notability. SERSeanCrane (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. There are many non-local places that have mentioned the company, but the MKE article happens to be the most in-depth. Shatner1 (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Then why haven't these been included in the article? SERSeanCrane (talk) 02:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * They are now included.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge into parent company Special Entertainment. As stated above, article is not WP:ONEVENT, and just doesn't appear to me to establish notability for a seperate article. – Alex43223T 02:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge any relevant, sourced information in to the parent article, Special Entertainment. I can't find any reliable, third-party, sources that directly support standalone notability per WP:CORP. While they may be the distribution company for Hamlet A.D.D., it's only through the parent company, and notability is not inherited.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 03:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article has been further sourced and meets the requiremnents of WP:GNG. Further, if the productions are notable, the producing company has that same notability if they have coverage in reliable sources, as does Brownmark. If there had been no articles about the production company, I'd be saying delete or merge, but since that is not the case, its now a keeper.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets the minimum criteria for notability, verifiability, and reliable sources. — BQZip01 —  talk 07:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Special Entertainment. Precious Roy (talk) 13:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There is greater specific sourcable notability for Brownmark than there is for the parent company.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So, would you recommend merging the parent company into the subsidiary? Does Special Entertainment even have notability? SERSeanCrane (talk) 02:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See below.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I can't see any reason to delete this. The references establish notability.  Merging would be inappropriate as it appears that the subsidiary has greater notability than the parent.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge. The chief claim to notability for this business is having created an Internet meme video that also has its own article.  The subject seems to be adequately covered either there or in the article about the parent business. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There is greater specific sourcable notability for Brownmark than there is for the parent company.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So, would you recommend merging the parent company into the subsidiary? Does Special Entertainment even have notability? SERSeanCrane (talk) 02:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See below  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete — (edit conflict) Notability is not inherited. I contend that What What (In the Butt) is notable and can possibly be reliably sourced as such. However, the company is not reliably sourced, nor could I find any in a cursory Google search. Hence, a lack of notability with the company, not the video. MuZemike  ( talk ) 18:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And what would make a production company notable if they did not produce notable products? Per WP:CORP and the coverage in reliable sources as provided in this article ensure that notability.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete I was invited to participate here by User:SERSeanCrane to attempt to get a consensus on the article, I'm not sure if that's borderline canvassing or not.  Anyway, I can find nothing on google news that talks about the film company, nor can I find much definite information about the company.  Where is the location?  The article claims Milwaulkee but I can't find any address on the website or on the internet.  The article also says that the studios were created by Special Entertainment, but the citation doesn't hint about the creation at all.  Perhaps Special Entertainment bought them?  Anyhow, the article is very poorly cited and misleading.  "Brownmark Films" seems to be less of a company and more of an advertising phrase used in lieu of the producerss names.  How many employees work at this company?  By my understanding this "company" is little more than the name of a youtube channel and a signature for the producers of the videos.  What, What in the Butt is definitly a notable song, but the company that created it is not.  The company is squished between the famous song they created and the notability of their parent company, Special Entertainment and there's not enough coverage showing that the company has any notability apart from those two entities. Themfromspace (talk) 19:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * An address for Brownmark Films can be found HERE. However, WP:CORP does not mandate a set address or a minimum number of employees or even that the "company" be more than just a name. Brownmark Films meets the criteria because of substantial coverage in reliable sources inpendent of the subject. And actually, Browmark has developed a much greater and sourcable notability than the parent company. Their continued productions, and the coverage of this pushes them past WP:ONEEVENT. Small they may be, but notable they most certainly are.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So, would you recommend merging the parent company into the subsidiary? Does Special Entertainment even have notability? SERSeanCrane (talk) 02:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not suggesting that reverse merge... not at this time. Was simply addressing the suggestions that the more notable company be merged to the less notable. One AfD at a time... one AfD at a time.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * With regard to canvassing. I've been told I could get my "pee-wee schwacked" if I don't address the issue. As User talk:BQZip01 pointed out here[] I sent out requests to various users that had previously contributed to recent afd media-related discussions. I was not seeking a vote, simply consensus, which I pointed out in the requests I left with editors. Furthermore, prior to this canvassing allegation, I had a nice exchange with MichaelQSchmidt thanking him for contributing and, as you've seen here, he's probably the best proponent of the article in the debate. And that's that. I'm glad I did what I did because it stirred up this afd to an actual debate. Keep it up! SERSeanCrane (talk) 02:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The "Nutshell" of WP:Canvas is "To avoid disrupting the consensus building process on Wikipedia, editors should keep the number of notifications small, keep the message text neutral, and not preselect recipients according to their established opinions." You did keep the number of notifications small, you were neutral in your request for input, and received this input from editors that both agreed and diagreed with the deletion nomination. So, you did not violate the behavioral guideline... but BQ is correct in his friendly advice, as perception is everything on Wikipedia. I can appreciate your wishing to get this AfD over once and for all, one way or the other. Indeed, that was what  MBisanz  had in mind by the relisting... wanting to finally reach a consensus. Similar goals... different means.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * '''Keep. Seems notable to me. Tarheel95 Tar-Talk —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC).
 * Do not delete (keep or merge) - the company seems notable, the fact that it's an internet company doesn't make it automatically NN as some seem to believe. I don't oppose a merger however, because this and Special Entertainment seem to be highly related, but if someone knowledgeable in the field can expand both articles to clearly convey difference, a merger won't be necessary. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 22:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to viral video and keep article history or very weak keep. If after a redirect the editors want to undo the redirect and redirect the viral video to here that's fine too.  The video is probably more notable than the company now but that is likely to change in the future.  If they have even a modicum of success with their 2009 project, they will be considered notable and I'd vote a straight-up keep.  But that's then and this is now.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  05:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: seems notable to me. Ryan 4314   (talk) 06:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.