Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Special Entertainment


 * 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. Pigman ☿ 03:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Special Entertainment

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I don't think this is quite an A7...but it doesn't seem to be notable Signed,  Jona  than  • Don't stereotype 04:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as nom Signed,  Jona  than  • Don't stereotype 04:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This company seems just as noteworthy, or more noteworthy, than many other companies on Wikipedia. I added some more info and links after the article went up for deletion, and can add more of them if you'd like. Shatner1 (talk) 04:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "Other stuff exists" is basically what your argument boils down to. The added sources aren't very good at all, and border on spam (seven links to IMDb, the reliability of which is sometimes in question). Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 05:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * An article's quality is not determined by links and sources. Also, this argument seems to be just a little bit of an "I like it" type.  Jonathan T • @ • C 17:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

What kind of information/references/links are you guys looking for? I went to many other film production company articles on Wikipedia that have less information, fewer links, and seem much less noteworthy. I can certainly write a longer article with more information if that's what you want. Shatner1 (talk) 22:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Non notable, and I have my questions about those "references". - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Non notable. REfs do look a bit weak. Hammer1980 ·talk 09:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * We are looking to get the article past WP:Note, which means the topic must have recieved significant coverage in WP:reliable sources that are independent. See WP:Note and WP:ORG.  The way I see it, mkeonline is one source.  The other sources does not seem to give significant coverage to Special Entertainment, and does not seem to pass our demands to an editorial process.Taemyr (talk) 13:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Per reply above. Taemyr (talk) 13:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The company recently changed names. I guess I'll wait until the IMDb changes take effect (siting Special Entertainment instead of Fortress Productions), and wait for the other print articles to come out, then I'll re-post this article with those changes. How many more "reliable sources" do you think I need? Two? Ten? Shatner1 (talk) 23:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The way I understand the policies, multiple means more than one, so two should in general be enough. Taemyr (talk) 09:36, 28 November 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.