Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lantern Entertainment (2nd nomination)


 * 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. This seems to be a rather pointed AFD nomination. I strongly suggest that the nominator either step away from the conversation entirely or take a deep breath and actually participate in a consensus discussion on the talk page. The consensus in the last discussion is the same as the consensus in this discussion, it's notable, and as one of your peers said notability isn't temporary. Whatever issues or qualms you have with the article need to be discussed, not pushed bypassing procedures in place to work on articles with issues. AFD is not cleanup. (non-admin closure) Dusti*Let's talk!* 04:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Lantern Entertainment
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lantern Entertainment is Weinstein Company (TWC), as it is Weisntein Company's assets and remaining staff despite a new business form. Under that line of thinking DreamWorks would have three different articles. In the prior deletion discussion, explaining the same issue to Lantern employees where taken as "edit warring", which their editing or tell us what to do is COI. Those opposing support a violation of WP:ORGSIG, ie. just because it exists it is notable. They would also claiming WP:INHERITORG based on its purchase of TWC. Additional since that deletion discussion further actions make it unlikely Lantern would met WP:COMPANY. Lantern Entertainment only became a transitory entity by its transfer of it assets to Spyglass Media Group then holding entity by holding Lantern Capital's holding in Spyglass. Spshu (talk) 13:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk</b>) 13:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. <b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 13:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. <b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 13:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spshu (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Spshu (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep because this company is notable on its own. There are numerous articles about this company proceeding with Weinstein Co. assets. Los Angeles Times says, "The veteran South African-born executive has teamed with Lantern Entertainment, which bought the assets of the defunct Weinstein Co. last year... it acquired the remains of the Weinstein Co. out of Chapter 11 bankruptcy in July for $289 million." Weinstein Co. went bankrupt. That company's article should be historical. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. the article Erik cites is about the transfer of the Weinstein Co. asset to Spyglass Media Group, which has its own article being a reactivation of an existing company. Spshu (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep as article was recently kept at AfD, sourcing supports the AfD outcome, and notability is not temporary. As the closing admin said in the previous AfD, "separate editorial consensus can be decided as to whether the articles should be merged, changed, or moved". I understand that the nominator (of both AfDs) disagreed with the previous outcome, but the way to handle this going forward is at the article talk pages. Talk: Lantern Entertainment and Talk:Spyglass Media Group are thataway. Bakazaka (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Sourcing did NOT support the AfD outcome nor notability. At best, at purchasing Weinstein Company is inheriting notability, which does NOT grant notability. Others consider this an appropriate forum. Thus you are going to make an issue out of having an official deletion discussion or informal ones on the the talk page. Spshu (talk) 18:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The more interesting diffs are and, in which you blanked and redirected the page multiple times AFTER the previous AfD, against community consensus, without discussion, and after being reverted. That's disruptive editing, and I suggest you let this one go before your activities on this article draw scrutiny from someone with a block button. Bakazaka (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Because as point out in the nomination and in the edit summary, Lantern Entertainment will have only three actions, purchase of Weinstein assets, purchase of full control of three Quentin Tarantino films then the transfer to Spyglass Media Group. You were disruptive at the last AfD for claiming that the only place these are articles can be discussion are the talk pages - in defiance of the vary exists of AfD as you do again here. The prior AfD is based on that it is an article fork, same article thus notability isn't addressed. Making false claim so as a new consensus can be formed and attempt to short circuit this discussion because I was bold in understanding Lantern Entertainment's notability status and that existing is not per WP:ORGSIG "No company or organization is considered inherently notable." for which the redirect reverter explain as the removal reason. Which a prior editor put forth for reverting making a redirect "rvt redirection - this is a separate company". You, Bakazaka, by your statements above is involved in WP:DAPE and disruptive tendency 2. Don't come cherry pick to make like you are for talk/concensus making when you are trying to suppress it. Spshu (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Or you could double down on WP:IDHT, I guess. Bakazaka (talk) 21:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Speedy Keep Company plainly exists and is distributing content; as with my last nom vote!, this is completely disruptive, you're tuning out any consensus that's being built for your own interpretations, and whatever is going on with Spyglass, we'll come to that road when we come to it. Bakazaka has the right interpretations of your actions again. I also see zero bytes of conversation on the Lantern and Spyglass talk pages, so you obviously have never considered posting anything to those pages, nor notifying interested users, when that's the first step well before deletion. Speaking of, archive your own user talk page already; someone on an average connection shouldn't have to wait 90 seconds to load and read it.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 04:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Partial support The nomination is very difficult to understand. However, what I can decipher of it, I sort of agree with. Lantern Entertainment is for nearly all intents and purposes, the Weinstein Company under a different name and corporate structure. It is therefore notable, because the Weinstein Company is. But as a result of that, it is not an entirely distinct entity from the Weinstein Company. I think in cases like these, the Weinstein Company should be moved over Lantern Entertainment, and a single article which contains the entire history of the company should exist, because Wikipedia doesn't handle this consistently at the best of times -- e.g. Mondelez is actually the legal successor to the old Kraft Foods Inc., while the article for Sony Music, includes its history before it merged with (the old) BMG, the period where it was merged with BMG is then covered under Sony BMG, then for the current period, where BMG sold its stake and the BMG name was removed, Sony Music again becomes the article which covers that period in history. The current SME is clearly a renamed SBMG, but because the names matches that of the original Sony Music, they are covered in a single article. Getting back to my point, Wikipedia's general treatment of continuity in company historys is often arbitrary and inconsistent -- in this case I think Lantern and Weinstein are one entity, and should have one entry, at the newest incarnation. But I can't fully support this nomination because I'm not certain that's what's being proposed, since that should be a merge listing anyway. - Estoy Aquí (talk) 12:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * To summarize: You're actually proposing a keep for this AfD, and adding an editorial recommendation to merge the Weinstein article into this one. Bakazaka (talk) 17:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. But my understanding of the proposal seems to read like that is what is being proposed, in the other direction (deleting this, and merging it's content into the Weinstein Company). But it's listed as a deletion, not a merge, hence partial support. Also because I'm not certain that's what the requester is proposing - Estoy Aquí (talk) 20:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * FYI at the time of this RM there appeared to be a consensus against moving the TWC article to Lantern. I for one think the ouster of the Weinsteins gives Lantern a rather different identity, but either way we need a consensus at a broader level. Nardog (talk) 00:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep If Spyglass turns out to be handling all Weinstein titles in the future and hence Lantern indeed a transitory entity, it might make sense to merge this article with either TWC or Spyglass. But at this point it is premature (WP:CRYSTAL) to make either assumption. Nardog (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   17:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.