Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siren Visual


 * 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   no consensus. Reading through the discussion, it seems obvious that there's no consensus as to whether or not the topic is sufficiently notable. Most participants agree that the article is in need of cleanup, including the addition of reliable sources, and despite a higher number of keep "votes" than deletes, no such references have been provided. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Siren Visual

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The creator of the article has removed the PROD claiming that notability has been established with the current set of references. None of the references establish notability and only mention the company in passing. I have tried to search for evidence of notability in reliable sources, but only turn up social media sites mentioning the organization. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - the current article sourcing is indeed rubbish, but the company is definitely notable, particularly within the Australian anime fan community. For example:  ("Siren Visual have certainly gone the hard yards with this release..."),  ("Siren Visual is set to explore the mainstream anime market..."),  ("Hey, you good people at Siren Visual? ..."),  ("Siren Visual Entertertainment is appealing the OFLC's decision...").  There's also a very high level of forum discussion across multiple communities which isn't sufficient to source facts but (a) itself testifies to notability and (b) creates the reasonable suspicion of significant coverage in reliable sources testifying to notability. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete as blatant advertising. No one independent has seen fit to give them any in-depth coverage in reliable sources, so fails GNG and WP:COMPANY. dramatic (talk) 07:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you please read my sources above? They include Twitch Film, Ain't It Cool News, Anime News Netork and Filmlink, all indubitably independent and reliable.  The standard for "significant" is NOT "in depth" but rather "non-trivial" and specifically notes that it need not be the main topic of the article. These guys are notable enough in media distribution in Australia that I'd heard of them without being an anime fan and prior to reading this article, which I realise isn't an argument for keep, but does go to show I'm not grasping at straws here.  (Note also the speedy delete criteria is not for "blatant" advertising but "unambiguous" advertising, which is not appropriate as this is exactly the kind of article you'd expect of a notable media distributor.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * #1 and #3 are trivial coverage (a compliment on the packaging!), #2 is a regurgitated press release and #4 looks more like a blog than a reliable source to me. Again, it's trivial coverage, not telling us anything about the significance of the company. I would expect the article about a film distributor to have a neutral tone, not read like the PR dept pump-up that this is. dramatic (talk) 09:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This article was already declined for speedy, sorry. 159.182.1.4 (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  -- —Farix (t &#124; c) 11:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep -- This is obviously in need of some major clean up, but AfD is not the place for that. They definitely sound like the Australian equivalent of a smaller distributor like Magnolia Pictures, and...honestly, WP:BIAS might be a factor here, given the US/Canada-centric focus of many of our editors and sources for this sort of thing. Give the Australian editors some time to source this properly, and chop the text down to what can be sourced now. Doceirias (talk) 20:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment My biggest issue with this are references, if some can be found and placed into the article while it sits here in AfD it would help alot. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I agree with Knowledgekid87. Before starting this AfD I attempted to find reliable sources to establish notability.  I could only find social media mentions, or really passing references in traditional reliable sources - nothing that establishes notability.  If such coverage can be found in legitimate reliable sources I'm fine with keeping the article.  But as it stands right now it sounds as if this is a non-notable company that is associated with some potentially notable films that may be good subjects for articles on their own.  But I just don't see anything currently to justify an article about the company itself.  If someone thinks there are such sources, please go ahead and add them to the article.  It will make things much clearer then.  ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply to Knowledgekid87 and ConcernedVancourverite - Sorry, I'm not clear on what the issue is with the sources I've provided above. How do you say they're not significant coverage in reliable independent sources?  For your reference again:  ("Siren Visual have certainly gone the hard yards with this release..."),  ("Siren Visual is set to explore the mainstream anime market..."),  ("Hey, you good people at Siren Visual? ..."),  ("Siren Visual Entertertainment is appealing the OFLC's decision..."). - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I read through a few of the Google news search results, and found mentions that Peter Jackson has one of his films released through Siren Visual.  A company like this is judged by it works, this something by a notable director.   D r e a m Focus  11:24, 24 November 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.