Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Good Clean Fun (production company)


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 02:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Good Clean Fun (production company)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable production company lacking GHits and GNEWS. Appears to fail WP:COMPANY.  ttonyb (talk) 02:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Notable production company, with numerous credits in the same kind of reality space. Patterned page after Reveille Productions page. Andie m (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.48.114 (talk)
 * Comment – Just saying something is notable does not make it so. The article does not demonstrate notbability by using independent, verifiable, reliable sources.   ttonyb  (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - hence the IMDB link to verifiable credits, and NAACP citation. Links to several established, non-contested wikipedia pages that apparently consider the shows produced notable. Kept page minimal to avoid any sense of promotion. New York Times source that was previously included was removed. Will re-add.64.183.48.114 (talk) 23:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. Lack of reliable sources to indicate notability of a company found and given. Notability is not inherited. tedder (talk) 02:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Based on notability examples in wikipedia, Notability is inherited in multiple ways - several shows on notable networks (MTV, Style, E! - Depth of coverage is national), notable shows, notable celebrities in music, TV, and sports. Based on WP:ORG, if the organization itself did not receive notice, then the organization is not notable. In this case, sources document NAACP Image Award recognition for organization.64.183.48.114 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC).
 * Comment – You may want to re-read the title and opening paragraph of the article you are quoting from.  As the title of the article you quoted from states, these are arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.  Therefore, your arguments are not valid.  Additionally, the production company did not win an award, only the show did.  Again, not a valid arguement.    ttonyb  (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – Ah - that explains a lot of the confusion that I encountered when reading that note. That notability argument retracted - however, depth of coverage is indeed national, (national networks show product) and a still valid argument based on corporation guidelines. Entertainment awards are actually given TO individuals/companies FOR shows. (Hence the ongoing debates about which entities and/or individuals receive producer credit on projects and why you see a bunch of producers clamber on stage to accept.) 64.183.48.114 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC).
 * Comment – Having a national show that was produced by the company is not national coverage. The show might have national coverage, but I do not see the company as having such coverage. The production company did not win the award, the program did.  The program is listed as the award winner, not the company.  Additionally, the award is not a "non-trivial" award.   ttonyb  (talk) 01:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – Artists or collaborators that have their work shown at a national level have to be considered notable - whether it is at a large gallery, wide film release, or national network. Other production companies that meet this standard are listed on wikipedia without contest. And in what judgement are the NAACP Image Awards considered "trivial"? 64.183.48.114 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 18:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC).


 * Comment – If you can show me where having "work shown at a national level" is part of the Wikipedia notability criteria for Companies, I'll agree; however, until you can the existence of other articles has no bearing on this AfD.  "Not-trivial" would be Oscar, National Prime Time Emmy, SAG award, etc.   ttonyb  (talk) 14:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 10:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep producing one notable show does not prove notability . producing multiple ones does prove it.    DGG ( talk ) 21:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - per DGG. Very good reasoning.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I fail to see what DGG and BabbaQ see because I do not understand why production should indicate notability. I have no idea what it means to "produce" a show or how the production team is any more notable than the many other entities involved in making a tv show, but so far as I understand the artists, the publishers, and the art itself are the important subjects for articles.  Certainly the NAACP award mentioned above did not go to this production company - it went to the work of art, which is the show.  The artists who made the show are not the production team - this company is more akin to a an entity which provides a famous artist an easel and paint than they are to either the person who does the painting or the publisher who makes the work known.  I am not seeing any claim which suggests notability nor am I finding anything through Google which indicates that the company is notable beyond what the article states right now.   Blue Rasberry    (talk)   12:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  -- tedder (talk) 13:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * if you dont know that. Maybe it wasnt right for you to provide an opinion on this article in the first place as you yourself says I have no idea what it means to "produce" a show or how the production team is .--BabbaQ (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - per DGG. Agree w/ BabbaQ in response to Bluerasberry. Andie m (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2011 (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.