Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glitch Productions


 * 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 redirect to Meta Runner. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  09:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Glitch Productions

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

As much as I dislike the idea of deleting articles, I honestly don't think Glitch Productions meets the notability guidelines for WP:WEB or WP:NCORP just yet. Besides the Kotaku source and the VentureBeat paragraph, most of the sources here either briefly discuss the company in relation to their Meta Runner and SMG4 works or are primary sources from their own YouTube videos. If WP:100W were an official guideline, I still don't think the sources here would satisfy that beyond the aforementioned Kotaku and VentureBeat pieces. However, if there were just one more in-depth source about them, I think Glitch Productions would just barely pass WP:WEB at least and I'd be happy to close the discussion. I looked on Google News but still haven't found another good source yet - there may be one I overlooked however. If anyone could find that good source (or more), whether a news source, book or scholarly article, I'd be happy to withdraw the nomination. If not, I apologize to the fans of Meta Runner, SMG4 and Glitch Productions in advance. There's already a draft for the company however, so not all hope is lost if it gets deleted or merged/redirected. PantheonRadiance (talk) 22:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 22:08, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment: I forgot to mention that I did identify these two sources as WP:SIGCOV in my before search, but I dismissed them because I'm not sure this website counts as a reliable source. PantheonRadiance (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Would either of these sources suffice?

https://www.mediaweek.com.au/screen-australia-announces-1-8-million-for-9-online-projects/

https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/the-screen-guide/c/glitch-productions-pty-ltd/20539/ - K-popguardian (talk) 01:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm not entirely sure about Mediaweek's reliability, but even so, a basic Ctrl+F reveals that they're mentioned in only one sentence that's more about Meta Runner than GP. As for Screen Australia, that link just seems like a repo of their works like IMDb. I guess both would be fine for verifiability, but I don't think it adds much to their notability. PantheonRadiance (talk) 04:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey @PantheonRadiance, I am someone that actually works for Glitch and would like to work to keep this page up. I have gathered 3 sources that hopefully can help withdraw the nomination.
 * [Https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2021/10/murder-drones-animated-series-glitch/ https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2021/10/murder-drones-animated-series-glitch/]
 * [Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WB7GrLBr7fo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WB7GrLBr7fo]
 * https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/subscribe/news/1/?sourceCode=DTWEB_WRE170_a_GGL&dest=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailytelegraph.com.au%2Fnewslocal%2Fsouthern-courier%2Fyoutubers-kevin-and-luke-lerdwichagul-bring-the-world-of-gaming-to-life-in-meta-runner%2Fnews-story%2Ff552592ad6ca4da40f1938bcbb87f670&memtype=anonymous&mode=premium&v21=dynamic-cold-control-score&V21spcbehaviour=append CubeThePenguin (talk) 17:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/subscribe/news/1/?sourceCode=DTWEB_WRE170_a_GGL&dest=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailytelegraph.com.au%2Fnewslocal%2Fsouthern-courier%2Fyoutubers-kevin-and-luke-lerdwichagul-bring-the-world-of-gaming-to-life-in-meta-runner%2Fnews-story%2Ff552592ad6ca4da40f1938bcbb87f670&memtype=anonymous&mode=premium&v21=dynamic-cold-control-score&V21spcbehaviour=append CubeThePenguin (talk) 17:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/subscribe/news/1/?sourceCode=DTWEB_WRE170_a_GGL&dest=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailytelegraph.com.au%2Fnewslocal%2Fsouthern-courier%2Fyoutubers-kevin-and-luke-lerdwichagul-bring-the-world-of-gaming-to-life-in-meta-runner%2Fnews-story%2Ff552592ad6ca4da40f1938bcbb87f670&memtype=anonymous&mode=premium&v21=dynamic-cold-control-score&V21spcbehaviour=append CubeThePenguin (talk) 17:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete IMHO the coverage is mostly WP:ROUTINE announcements and WP:PASSING mentions, therefore the company does not meet NCORP. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:40, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Update: or Redirect to Meta Runner. Thank you for the suggestion, PantheonRadiance. I agree that a redirect is a suitable WP:ATD here. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment #2: Hey, thank you for taking the time to look for sources about GP; I just finished looking at them. First off, I highly recommend you read WP:COI immediately if you haven't done so already. That being said, here are my thoughts on the sources you suggested to me.


 * 1) I somehow didn't see this source appear on Google News at all when looking at the sources, which is odd. This Gizmodo source does go into Murder Drones a bit more than it does the company itself, but there are a couple of sentences dedicated to the company in relation to the process for how they created the series. I would say it partially shows their notability, but I would've liked it to go just a bit more in detail about the company itself. This does seem on the right track however.
 * 2) Hmm... I don't think this source establishes their notability at all. I know YouTube videos can be used IF they're from a reliable media outlet (like say The Guardian, IGN, Wired, etc.), and it's a secondary/independent video. However, Screen Australia seems to be an affiliate of GP and doesn't seem like a news or journalism outlet, so it doesn't count as independent. Not to mention most of the video merely has the brothers talking about themselves and such rather than, say, a journalist using clips from the interview and adding explanatory or analytical commentary alongside it. This source could be used as a primary source for how they formed, but seeing as how most of the info comes "straight from the horse's mouth," it's not secondary or independent enough to confirm notability.
 * 3) I admittedly glossed over the Daily Telegraph source when I did my BEFORE search and didn't realize it until yesterday after creating the AfD discussion, not to mention it being under a paywall. Although it also focuses on Meta Runner, it does go into some good detail on the brothers who made the company and partially on the process for making the series. It's a fine enough secondary source to use, and this should've been added to the article long before the mainspace was created.
 * Overall, I suppose along with the brief Kotaku and VentureBeat sources, #1 and #3 has swayed me a bit more into the Weak Keep side of the spectrum. I wish the sources were more 75% about the company and 25% about their creations, but I suppose these sources are barely enough to cross the threshold of notability.
 * However, I unfortunately decided that I won't withdraw the nomination yet because there is another issue at hand: the draft. This article was a near-blatant copy of the declined draft from a few months ago that was edited over the redirect to Meta Runner against 's wishes, and didn't even come close to proving a stronger case for notability than before. In fact the version before I nominated it for deletion had more primary sources to YouTube than the draft, showing how ill-conceived this plan was. Because of this choice, we're left with a dilemma that I feel more editors need to chime in on. Assuming these sources pass, should we keep this version of the article and merge the declined draft here? Or should we delete this version, revise the draft with these added sources and push the draft to mainspace via AfC? And if other editors believe these sources don't amount to notability, what about other alternatives? If you don't think these sources count, have you also considered a possible merge or redirect to Meta Runner as well, like how it originally was a few months ago? PantheonRadiance (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi @PantheonRadiance yes I have looked at the stuff regarding COI and have declared it on my profile, I'm doing this voluntarily & unpaid on my own time rather than as someone from the company, I just wanted to declare that I do work for them.
 * Regarding this draft, is this something I need to help out/discuss with or is it something that somebody else did that you guys would need to talk about. Additionally, just from my own opinion I'm not sure if a merge with Meta Runner would be appropriate since this article focuses primarily on Glitch as a company while the Meta Runner page focuses more on the show they produced. Thanks CubeThePenguin (talk) 20:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you've acknowledged it. :) The issues with the draft were admittedly another reason why I nominated the page for deletion, because it seemed like an attempt to game the system without necessarily proving that GP was notable. My comment was directed more towards other editors in general, especially those who reviewed the draft months ago and didn't notice that the draft overrode the redirect. PantheonRadiance (talk) 20:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey @PantheonRadiance got it no worries! I apologize for that I had no idea someone did that to bypass the drafting process. Is there anything I can do to help resolve that and have everything go through due process without deletion? CubeThePenguin (talk) 22:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I would say you could work on adding the sources you found into either the draft or mainspace, but honestly even I'm not sure how this will play out exactly, not to mention your CoI. As aforementioned I'm leaning a bit more towards a (very) weak keep, but other editors may not fully agree with me, so I suppose we should wait to get more responses to see others' responses (especially with the draft as well). In the meantime, you should look for as many reliable sources as possible that cover them in significant enough detail. If you do manage to find more, post them here immediately. Here's a list of sources listed on WP that are reliable per community consensus.
 * Also to Is there an alternate way for me to access the source, or at least post what it says about GP (like the word count)? If it's significant enough, then taking into consideration CubeThePenguin's sources as well I think it might make a stronger case for notability. If it isn't significant, would you prefer a redirect instead? PantheonRadiance (talk) 00:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: The question is - are there enough IRS to pass notability. More participation needed Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 10:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. I've added the one RS I could find in Newsbank (news database covering Australia and NZ). However, I'm inclined to agree with MrsSnoozyTurtle: I don't think it's sufficient to satisfy WP:NCORP. Cabrils (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - I was pinged and will comment at this time before reviewing the article in detail to !vote. First, the nominator expresses an inclusionist dislike of deleting articles.  Unthinking inclusionism is manipulated by bad-faith conflict of interest editors to try to stuff crud into Wikipedia; but the nominator is thinking, and agrees that sometimes articles should be deleted.  Second, I didn't create the redirect; I only tagged it R with possibilities.  Third, I didn't evaluate the draft as to corporate notability.  I declined it on account of sourcing, that is, for verifiability.  The draft had been reference-bombed with low-quality sources, including too many references to YouTube, and I said that I wasn't planning to review all of the sources to see if a few of them were significant coverage.  The current article also appears to have too many low-quality sources including YouTube.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment - Adding on to Less Unless' note, I have a few questions editors should discuss. First, does anyone believe BubbleBlabber is a reliable source? If so, would the two articles from the website count for establishing notability? Second, keeping the Gizmodo and Daily Telegraph sources in mind as well (and even the brief Kotaku/VentureBeat articles too), would it just barely be enough for GP to pass any of the guidelines (CORP, WEB, GNG)? Finally, if these sources aren't enough and more can't be found, then would anyone be in favor of a redirect/merge to Meta Runner instead of deletion? I'm slightly more lenient towards a weak keep but as an alternative option I'll stick with a merge/redirect. PantheonRadiance (talk) 00:59, 29 May 2022 (UTC)


 *  Delete or Draft-ify or Merge w/ Meta Runner It is not surprising that this article ended up AfD'd considering how most "potential" articles related to SMG4 and GLITCH (e.g. Murder Drones, SMG4) are the subject of repeated creations (see WP:SALT). I would keep it if there were substantial amounts of reliable and independent secondary sources, not just sources linking to YouTube. AlphaBeta135 (talk) 01:48, 31 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Update Note I want to make things clear that these YouTube videos from SMG4 and GLITCH in the Glitch Production article (or related) are, by Wikipedia's definition, primary sources; the videos are published by SMG4 and GLITCH, to reiterate. From what I can hypothesize in my following statements, using these videos as a source of this article is generally discouraged as they are subject to differing interpretations (sometimes slightly erroneous or misleading) from typical Wikipedians. A good secondary sources can provide an objective (and a little bit subjective) summation of a particular source or simply mention the subject by a reliable third-party author or publisher. When there are plenty of information on this topic from a third-party, this (perhaps) minimizes the chance of (sometimes accidental) original research caused by misinterpretations from editors. Given how contentious this subject currently is over sourcing, I think it is in the best interest to stall Glitch Production from becoming mainspace or maybe even draft-ify it. For now, we could perhaps redirect Glitch Production and SMG4 to Meta Runner. Contrary to most people arguing for deletion, I do not think it makes sense to delete the Glitch Production article right away, as the Meta Runner article is still live. It would make sense to turn this article into a redirect to Meta Runner. If a potential redirect happens to be the subject of repeated attempts to turn it into an article without substantial sources, an edit protection is provided. Otherwise, if the Meta Runner article somehow got deleted, then Glitch Production (as a potential redirect) would be G8'd (speedy deleted). AlphaBeta135 (talk) 22:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Note I forgot to mention that redirects are not subject to WP:GNG or any notability guidelines; only mainspace articles are subject to such guidelines. Nowhere in any guideline (as far as I see) does redirects have to follow such rules. Since there is a Meta Runner article, which is related to Glitch Production, this could, again, be a potential redirect. AlphaBeta135 (talk) 00:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Note 3 Also, I would like to add and proclaim that the SMG4 (can only be created by template editors and admins) and Smg4 pages be redirected to Meta Runner. Both too are closely related to Meta Runner, since they are part of Glitch Productions. However, the SMG4 (all caps) page is un-editable by any non-admin or template editor, so one of the admins and template editors should, in my request, create the SMG4 (all caps) page as a redirect to Meta Runner. The Smg4 (as it is; also editable by any editor) page, in my opinion, should also be a redirect to Meta Runner instead of the most likely ill-fated Glitch Productions article. AlphaBeta135 (talk) 01:35, 5 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete or Redirect to Meta Runner as WP:ATD. I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 15:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Final thoughts - AlphaBeta135 and HighKing's responses are pretty solid in my opinion. I feel there's a rough consensus to keep the article as a redirect as it was a couple weeks ago. If anyone still wants to add the few sources discussed here to the GP draft and/or Meta Runner, you're welcome to do so. In any case, I think this should probably be protected as a redirect so no one is tempted to hastily recreate the article. In the meantime, if any new sources arise that do prove GP fully passes the guidelines, editors should add them to the draft. PantheonRadiance (talk) 06:00, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey @PantheonRadianceI actually have one question regarding the Screen Australia sources. Before you stated this
 * "However, Screen Australia seems to be an affiliate of GP and doesn't seem like a news or journalism outlet, so it doesn't count as independent." just regarding any SA sources, SA themselves are actually also a publisher and a government agency, so even though they do help fund Glitch Projects, I just wanted to ask exactly why they would not count as independent.
 * Additionally, just to make things fully clear, the biggest issue at the moment is just not enough Secondary Sources correct? so e.g. sources from an independent outlet that talk about Glitch as a company rather than one of their shows? When I say "Glitch as a company" I just want to know what that means is all, so that I can help. If new sources that suffice were to come in the future, does that mean the article would need to be re-written as well if it does get deleted/redirected? Thanks. CubeThePenguin (talk) 03:23, 8 June 2022 (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.