Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space Shots


 * 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. Extensive commentary below shows no evidence of notability. --Sam Blanning(talk) 02:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Space Shots

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Does not seem to meet notability criteria in WP:ORG or WP:MUSIC. RJASE1 Talk  05:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC) A case has not been made for deletion. User 'YechieMan' makes no specific assertions or claims, so ther is no fact or matter at issue to which anyone can reply.
 * Delete per nom. YechielMan 06:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per nom. Not only that, the history shows that it was penned by the producer, and it is inundated with vanity links to his Myspace page. - WeniWidiWiki 05:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The assertions made above by user 'WeniWidiWiki' fail on several points of fact:

1) The entry was not penned by me (though I did supply a photo) 2) "inundated with vanity links". Not so. There were 2 Myspace links, 1 remains for reasons outlined below. If 1 link is "inundation", then most Wikipedia articles are similarly inundated.

The 2 users cited above may be familiar with SPACE SHOTS, and possibly FRONTIERS, but I don't know. If so, thanks for watching -- glad to count you among the audience -- sorry if you didn't like what you saw, but that should not be grounds for removal. If they have not ever seen SPACE SHOTS, and have not been to Austin, TX, then the assertions are rooted in complete ignorance, lack of knowledge, and that explains the lack of facts in their claims(either directly known or for which they can provide evidence).

RE: "... Does not seem to meet notability criteria ..." SPACE SHOTS has been influential and the methods used to procduce it have reduced TV/video production costs significantly. The video shoot, edit, and post-production tactics & strategies have altered the character, content, look, and feel of nearly everything coming out of Austin, TX. The reduced cost and production-cycle times in the SPAXE SHOTS business models are part of what is making Austin, TX a growing center for music (and other) video production, despite its location and other srategic business drawbacks.

I think that the preponderance of evidence would establish that SPACE SHOTS does meet the notability criteria.

I'm not sure how many hits this entry receives, but "Space Shots" (the TV show) is the #7 yahoo.com search entry, and the #11 Google.com search entry, for the term "Space Shots". "Space Shots TV" is atthe top of both company's search-results. Ask Google and Yahoo for details on how their search algorithms work.

-BL The Eagle 01:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC) - - - - -
 * Please read Reliable sources. Myspace is not a reliable source. Also, take a look at Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Are you sure no newspaper has ever written about Space Shots? CloudNine 16:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The timing and other facts about this particular delete-request are intersting, and raise questions about conflicts of interest by the delete-requestors.

1) There are more people and there is more commentary pertaining to this delete request than to any (maybe all) other current, pending delete-requests. Despite the claim that SPACE SHOTS lacks sufficient notability, the attention here and now strongly indicates otherwise.

2) For about 2 years, I have been asking the |Texas Governor's Music Office to update the obsolete web address for Space Shots. In early February, I went public and noted the "sloppiness and apparent staff intattention" in this matter, and stated that "it begs the question: ...what other information issued by the Texas Governor's Office is wrong, obsolete or inaccurate?"

Question: Are any of those requesting a deletion affiliated or connected, either personally, professionally, or otherwise, with thee Texas Governor's Office or the Texas Governor's Music Office?

3) Time Warner Cable has a TV station called M-E TV which they operate as a music channel in Austin, Texas. For over two years, they have been unable to get "good", "exciting", or "cool" bands to appear on their live music forums, because they are considered "dorky", "gay", "dull", etc. by music fans and bands. A few bands that received a lot of promotion on M-E TV and Time Warner's news affiliate "News-8 Austin" bombed completely at local clubs (no one went to the shows except station staff, who were given free tickets).

SPACE SHOTS is a non-commercial project, and licensing agreements for use of live performance videos of major rock bands (e.g. Black Sabbath, Guns 'N Roses, Motley Crue) have not been licensed to Time Warner for commercial Cable TV use. In a recent solicitation (local posters and several myspace posts -- |here'a a link to one such post -- in early February generated over 40 band applications for a video taping event during SXSW 2007. These will use the Austin Public Access TV facilities (under an agreement similar to those recently concluded for the TX State Lottery Commisison, and Friday Night Lights).

Time Warner attempted a similar campaign for M-E TV, but received no takers. They will do something else during SXSW 2007.

So, are any of the delete-requestors here professionally or otherwise affiliated with Time Warner, Warner Music Group, or affiliate labels that have a material interest in commercial ventures during SXSW 2007? -BL The Eagle 14:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Further commentary
I think that the request for deletion here probably has nothing to do with SPACE SHOTS at all. 1) the delete requestor does not seem to have ever watched the show; 2) the requestor seems to be making his request for non-content related reasons; 3) There is no specific fact asserted about SPACE SHOTS cited by the delete requestor that indicates a violation of Wikipedia policies.

This article was not penned by the program's producer.

Just a guess here: This request may have been made as some retailiation for controversial analyses and news reported on FRONTIERS, concerning the Iraq war, U.S. relations with Israel, and a long-running thread that suports the war as an economic venture, but is heavily critical of the U.S. military strategy (or more specifically, the lack of a coherent military strategy) to date.

Recent commentary has drawn a criticism and opposition from both Zionist and anti-Zionist groups. Since the FRONTIERS information is from trusted and verifiable sources, no retractions or apologies have been made.

FRONTIERS has been a controversial TV program series since its inception in March, 1988. But has been retained and built itself an audience.

SPACE SHOTS has not drawn much fire -- until now. Black Eagle 18:1, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Space_Shots"
 * Comment - I've honestly never heard of the "FRONTIERS" thing. My only concern is with notability, as I stated above. I cited the guidelines with which I was concerned - if it can be demonstrated and sourced that Space Shots is notable per that criteria, I have no objection to keeping it. Otherwise, it should probably be deleted. Also, the above comment makes me think there's a WP:COI issue here as well. RJASE1 Talk  18:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

--- How can WP:COI issues be resolved? I could mail you (or whoever makes the final determinations for deletion) at Wikipedia copies of articles or other materials. What will be useful or helpful, and to where should they be sent? -BL User:The Eagle  Talk  19:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you the same person as Black Eagle? RJASE1 Talk  19:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

---

No. We are different people. We have worked together profesionally for over 20 years. What is your role at Wikipedia, RJASE1? -BL User:The Eagle  Talk  20:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC) ---

The only assertion made by the delete-requestor here that seems to warrant a response (since it may be relevant to Wikipedia inclusion policies) is the link to a myspace.com page. This was done for a few reasons:

1) Myspace is a generally neutral forum; 2) Myspace is not a site which I have to maintain or on which I need to provide anti-hacker security; 3) Myspace seemed to fit more closely with the SPACE SHOTS theme so I recommended linking to it instead of other sites); 4)I never spend money on what is offered for free (a convenient web page in this case).

If a myspace link is problem, then go ahead and delete it. People who need to get in touch with me can do so via several other platforms & channels. If you do that, then it seems reasonable to expect that all other links to a myspace.com page will also be deleted at Wikipedia.

I'm not inclined to go through all of the wikipedia entries for various music, movie, television, and other entertainment entities, projects, or individuals. However, after a cursory read-through of those for some local (Austin, TX) talent, it's clear that most of it is essentially promotional and reads like something a publicist would write. Maybe most of it should be deleted ... though personally, I have no problem with any of it.

There is nothing in the entry that is not factual.Direct 'Black Eagle' to remove what you regard as too pomotional to meet Wikipedia guidelines.

Feel free to raise any additional matters of concern. At this time I can not determine that there are any good, valid reasons for deleting the SPACE SHOTS entry.

-BL User:The Eagle  Talk  21:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC) ---
 * On a related topic: Aparently there is a lot of confusion about what should or should not be included in Wikipedia. Recently, an entry for 'Freshmen magazine' was removed because someone though it lacked sufficient 'notability', yet there is an entry that may have pre-dated the removed one at Freshmen_(magazine) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Black Eagle (talk • contribs) 22:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC).


 * Delete -- nn, short term, cable public access show. Article includes some claims of importance that are not believable and, of course, not sourced.  Mango juice talk 01:21, 26 February 2007 (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.