Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SCFX


 * 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. There were various (uncited) claims of importance through having somewhat notable alumni, but notability is not inherited, and User:Kelapstick makes a persuasive argument. That said, as always, I'm willing to userify if somebody thinks that they'll be able to locate some sourcing. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

SCFX

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

Article was speedily deleted, then contested. Prod was added, then removed by article creator. Organization is not notable outside of the University of Southern California. Claim to being first special effects group is neither sourced and even if it were, probably wouldn't make it notable. TM 20:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I had done some GNews serches (I was going to nominate it but was too late) and all came up with nothing, they were:
 * 1) SCFX +university +california
 * 2) +university +southern +california+ special +effects - this came up something about supercritical fluid extrusion at USC Davis
 * 3) +USC +scfx
 * There was a mention in the school newspaper (included in the article) but it looked like passing mention and in my opinion a school newspaper reporting about an organization based at the school is hardly independent enough to establish notability.--kelapstick (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hangon. We've already established that the speedy deletion was unfounded (mistaken) as article asserts importance (see Speedy_Delete #7).  Internet sources are not going to be easy to come by, but I'll try to find some sources.  To summarize the reasons why this group is notable, it's the premiere academic group for special effects in the #1 film school and is the student ground zero for the special effects industry. The group's existence as an academic venue for the promotion of technical learning in the field of special effects predates any academic program in special effects, which are now commonplace, the field having evolved into a major commercial and artistic industry.  Long history, many notable alumni, active both in terms of student development and work production, well known in the industry, group alumni regularly return to give lectures for the group, or invite the group for tours at major special effects studios, such as Stan Winston Studios or Digital Domain or ILM.  The creator of Photoshop (also a major figure in special effects, having directed the effects for the Star Wars prequel trilogy) was a member. Robert K S (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I had originally speedy-deleted it,but reverted it to give time for sources to be added to show importance, which I think remains necessary. Looking at it again, there is perhaps evidence for notability in the distinguished alumni, though sources for each of them being there are needed. Ideal would be sources for their talking about its importance in their careers--as far as I'm concerned that would be proof of notability.   I almost always say to delete student clubs, but this may be an exception. DGG (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as no independent references are available to establish notability and to verify the content of an article. Notablity for an organization cannot be inherited from its members or former members. Drawn Some (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- kelapstick (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The criteria should be no different to anything else, i.e. coverage in third party reliable sources. If there have been notable members of an organisation, then that is a sign that the organisation may be notable, but doesn't prove notability. Having notable members means that it is more likely that this coverage will exist, but there still needs to be the coverage! I'm pretty sure that pretty much every student group will be able to claim a notable person as a member. Even if sources are found to say so-and-so was a member of such-and-such a group, unless the "sources address the subject directly in detail" it is not enough to establish notability. Quantpole (talk) 22:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and/or merge appropriate content to USC. If User:Robert K S wants, the page could be userified until he and or others can find reliable sources that comply with Wikipedia's guidelines. tedder (talk) 22:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If deleted, this should redirect to South Central Florida Express, Inc. --NE2 17:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with that assessment. The appropriate redirect to that organization is SCFE. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "X" is often used for "express", for instance by the DOT and several news articles. The reporting mark is SCXF because marks ending in X are used for non-railroads only. --NE2 19:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * FX As in effects.  As in special effects.  As in Keanu Reaves dodging bullets in The Matrix y/n?Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep: I would have said this could be notable. Yes, every frat, society and what have you must have famous alumni (damn right Skippy - sorry, Doonesbury reference) but this soc. seems to have a programme to bring on new special FX guys, which might make it more notable. More evidence about it's support/placement programme needed to convince me though - otherwise it's just the same old school tie that powers every other Greek, which isn't notable.Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:36, 8 May 2009 (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.