Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Filmlook


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 12:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Filmlook

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a redundant article to Film look. Both articles are about a technique that can be described in a few sentences. Suggest merging into a section in digital cinematography and/or color grading. NickCochrane (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Update As of now, the article has changed in focus and in topic after the AfD nomination. It is now about a non-notable company from Burbank. Say what you will. NickCochrane (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Evidence for the change of article focus and topic made by Oakshade after the AfD nomination NickCochrane (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Just for clarification, the dif and the version just before this AfD does stipulate this is about the company Filmlook Inc. in the second sentence and it later even goes on to explain the company's founding. The lede and later content in the article was confusing as to mean the general film look term.  I have brought clarification to ensure editors aren't confused as the nom was.--Oakshade (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Just for clarification, the dif and the version just before this AfD does stipulate this is about the company Filmlook Inc. in the second sentence and it later even goes on to explain the company's founding. The lede and later content in the article was confusing as to mean the general film look term.  I have brought clarification to ensure editors aren't confused as the nom was.--Oakshade (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - The basis for this AfD is factually inaccurate. "Film look" is the post-production process of filtering a video image to appear it was sourced from film.  "Filmlook" is the name of an actual company in Burbank, California that has long specialized in the film look process and even has registered the word "Filmlook" (not "film look").  This company has had extensive significant coverage over the decades.  A couple of examples include The independent film & videomaker's guide, which while you can't see all of it online, gives very in-depth coverage and this one.--Oakshade (talk) 02:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * More external sources demonstrating passing WP:NCOMPANY here -  And a New York Times external source shows this company even won an Emmy Award.  --Oakshade (talk) 06:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You cannot claim the basis for the AfD is inaccurate if you change the entire title and the focus of the article immediately after the AfD nomination. I'm not sure the protocol on this, I respect the right to edit during the AfD, but you have seriously confused editors and the edit you took part in was disruptive to the AfD. NickCochrane (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * First article improvement and clarification was "vandalism" and now it's "disruptive"? Have a read of WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM before you start attacking editors for fixing a problem.  This article was about a company and you didn't notice that.  You were confused.  I clarified this for you and other editors.  You're welcome.--Oakshade (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete No external sources to show that this company is notable. Fails WP:NCOMPANY. FurrySings (talk) 06:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * How are the external sources above that show in-depth coverage of this company "no external sources"?--Oakshade (talk) 06:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Shortly after th AfD nomination, the page was vandalized to become a page about some company called "Filmlook". This is an AfD discussion about the technique and as it relations to the other redundant article Film look. NickCochrane (talk) 08:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Starting clean-up and clarification is vandalism? Say what??  The article was already about the company "Filmlook" and before this AfD started, the Development section began, "In 1986, company founder Robert Faber began researching..."  You made an honest error with these AfDs.  But attacking other editors making improvements to an article as vandals is bad form. --Oakshade (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * CommentI'm not quite sure how this company just popped up out of nowhere. Neither the company, nor the technique are notable and need a page. The emmy award should be in an emmy award list somewhere, but the company is just like a thousand other film post production houses. NickCochrane (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Nick, I have no idea what your intention is? You've opened an AfD for both names, citing them as a duplicate of the other, but then talk about merging them into a different article? Why are they not in the same AfD then? You've reverted a perfectly legitimate edit by Oakshade which cleared up confusion - this article was about the company in the first place. This article should be kept for the company, which appears to be notable from Oakshade's sources. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The article definitely needs a lot of work and cleaning up, as there is overlap and confusion caused by it - but they aren't, necessarily, one and the same. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My intention is to get rid of these two pages that are chalk full with original research, and place a description of it into digital cinematography perhaps. NickCochrane (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, if you'd looked at this article correctly, you'd have realized that it was about the company, not directly about the process - although it did go on to describe how the process worked. The fact is, you can't AfD both as duplications of each other - that's just absurdly confusing. Also, you marked Oakshade's legitimate, good faith edit as vandalism, hence why I undid you revert. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I DID look at this article correctly, and it was AFTER the AfD that the focus was changed to this company. Why don't you LOOK at the evidence yourself. NickCochrane (talk) 21:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Lukeno94 is correct. The version just before you put this up for AfD indicated it was about the company Filmlook and even when into the company's founding. .  The poorly written lede mislead you, but had you read on, you would've realized it's about the company Filmlook Inc..  The article film look is correctly about the film look process and not about the company.   --Oakshade (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oakshade is correct; if you look at the small magnitude of his edit (which was only to the lead anyway), you would realize that all he did was clear up confusion - and I had already looked at the edit history before I made my comment. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.NickCochrane (talk) 03:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well perhaps he was editing at the very same time I was nominating the article for deletion, it was on my list to do. Regardless, the AfD still stands. NickCochrane (talk) 17:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This article was always primarily about the company, with an outline on the process included as well (as far back as 2010 in a random diff I looked at). It's never been layed out well, so I'm not surprised you were caught out. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Was not editing as the very same time you AfD'd this. According to the article edit history, I didn't make the clarification edit until over two hours after you started this AfD.  You were confused of what this article was about, Nick.  It's now clarified.--Oakshade (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep because it appears that the company is notable. A simple search engine test in Google Books shows results about the company and its founder. Google News is a little more sparse, but I suspect that additional coverage is more likely in industry publications which are not much available online. The article just needs cleanup. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 18:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, and for clarity's sake retitle Filmlook, Inc. as a topic meeting WP:CORP. Now that issues of topic separation have been dealt with and multiple independent sources found, there is not much more to say.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I second Michael in that if the article is to remain (however I still question notability), the article should be renamed, and film look remains the primary topic. NickCochrane (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thank you. And toward the Film look article, there are processes other than the one created by Filmlook Inc, and used by other filmmakers and productions companies, to emulate a "film look" to a non-film project. That article will benefit from expansion to cover other film look processes, just as this one on the company will benefit from expansion and sourcing.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Non notable company. Their one award is not significant enough to be notable. LenaLeonard (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Winning an Emmy and having significant coverage in secondary sources doesn't pass WP:NOTABILITY how?--Oakshade (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I couldn't help but notice awfully similar edit patterns to amazingly identical topics to User:NickCochrane since this account was created on January 19th. Might there be a sock puppet issue here?--Oakshade (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Response There may be grounds for notability, and I would change my vote if it could be proven - if the company was the "first" company to use or develop their technique. However the Emmy is not a stand alone measure of notability. As per your claim, I left a response on the Film look AfD. I suggest not making frivolous claims of sockpuppetry, thank you very much. LenaLeonard (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In fact the "keep" notability assertions here are based on coverage from secondary sources satisfying WP:NOTABILITY. The Emmy is an additional indication of notability.  A sock puppet investigation is forthcoming. --Oakshade (talk) 00:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Avoiding the socking argument, and assuming you are an unique editor, then LenaLeonard, you're grossly wrong here. Firstly, you've ignored every source presented here. Secondly, a company does not have to be the "first" to do something to be notable. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Could certainly benefit from cleanup, and RSs being embedded, and expansion, but there is enough coverage as has been pointed out to meet our notability requirements.Epeefleche (talk) 02:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note - Sockpuppet case open regarding User:NickCochrane and User:LenaLeonard at Sockpuppet investigations/NickCochrane.--Oakshade (talk) 05:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppetry case has been put on hold by admins, because I am not using a sockpuppet. Also, the AfD is likely going to rule in your favour. NickCochrane (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, Nick. A Checkuser admin, after performing a checukuser showing strong evidence that LenaLeonard is a sock of you, has put the case on hold pending a decision, not because you "are not using a sockpuppet." --Oakshade (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - this clearly appears to be a notable company and winning an Emmy Award for technical achievements makes it worth mentioning. The article does however need a major cleanup. Tiggerjay (talk) 04:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - I suggest an admin make a decision on this AfD and close it. If Keep, it must be renamed to "Filmlook, Inc." and requires major clean up. NickCochrane (talk) 13:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patchy1   13:40, 5 February 2013 (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.