Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sudden Impact! Entertainment Company


 * 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Sudden Impact! Entertainment Company

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Non-notable company lacking GHIts and GNEWS of substance. The references listed are short single item statements within a bigger article about another topic. I see some primary sources, but the article lacks secondary sources. Appears to fail WP:COMPANY.  ttonyb (talk) 16:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. I wrote the article myself and I have posted my reasoning to keep the article on the its talk page. Themeparkgc   Talk  21:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – As indicated in the nomination, the sources are not adequate to support the article for inclusion. The articles you refer to in the talk page are either about the founder with a very, very brief statement that he is the founder of the company or are not "non-trival" coverage of the article.  If I am missing adequate secondary coverage that meets WP:RS, please point those out.   ttonyb  (talk) 02:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep because this article clearly has tons of coverage is well sourced and written, and is on a topic of interest that many would probably expect to find on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemanetwork (talk • contribs) 11:44, 25 November 2010
 * Comment – Just saying something is so does not make it so, please point out "non-trivial" secondary coverage about the company (not a very, very brief statement in a reference that would support the founder of the company) that meets WP:RS.  Just being a topic of interest that might be of interest to readers is not a criteria in notability. There are many interesting subjects that are not notable that do not meet notability criteria and therefore are not on Wikipedia.    ttonyb  (talk) 02:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The citations are in the article, it the sources establish notabilityTHIS BITES 10:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisbites (talk • contribs)
 * Comment – Once again, just saying something is so does not make it so, I assume since you are unable to point out what I have asked for it does not exist in the article.  ttonyb (talk) 16:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Refer yourself to the "References" section at the bottom of the page and look through the linksTHIS BITES 00:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisbites (talk • contribs)
 * Comment – I have looked. Once again, just saying something is so does not make it so, I assume since you are unable to point out what I have asked for it does not exist in the article. I am willing to change my mind and agree with you that there are adequate sources if you can indeed point them out.   ttonyb  (talk) 01:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep because this article is of Wikipedia standard and this company is well notable in the Theme Park industry, creating world class attractions around the world. GoldCoastGuy (talk) 03:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – Please indicate how this article meets the criteria in WP:COMPANY.  ttonyb  (talk) 03:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – WP:COMPANY's primary criteria for notability are as follows: Depth of coverage, Audience and Independence of sources. To satisfy the audience criteria, the company must be covered by national or international media. Sudden Impact has been covered in the UK, Malaysia, Australia and Canada - more than sufficient international coverage to pass this criteria. The independence of sources criteria states "Sources used to support a claim of notability include independent, reliable publications in all forms, such as newspaper articles". There are several newspaper articles referenced within the article (all of which satisfy WP:RS) including Adelaide Now, The Age, Courier Mail, Gold Coast Bulletin, Mirror, The Star, and Today Tonight. These are in addition to reports from the Associated Press and Canadian Press. None of this material is press material, self-published nor any of the other exceptions listed in this criteria. The final criteria is that of depth of coverage. To satisfy this criteria it needs to have coverage more than a permastub (which it clearly does) by reliable sources. Although there are some sources which do come under the "identifying a quoted person as working for an organization" section, these are very minimal and only form part of the infobox. Coverage from Park World should be considered reliable because they have an editorial oversight and all articles have been published in print and online. Printed publication has been completed by the UK's Datateam. Similarly, Attractions Management Magazine has an editorial team with all articles published in print (by Leisure Media) and online. Together these two sources satisfy WP:V and WP:RS which results in depth of coverage criteria being satisfied also. Therefore I conclude that the Sudden Impact! Entertainment Company does pass the criteria of notability for a company. Hopefully this is enough of an explanation to solve this deletion discussion. Themeparkgc   Talk  05:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – Thanks for your explanation; however, what you fail to focus on is the statement, "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability." A national or international article of a trivial nature does not meet the criteria.  The articles you mentioned, as I stated above, are not adequate to support the article for inclusion. The articles you refer to in the talk page (and above) are either about the founder with a very, very brief statement that he is the founder of the company or are not "non-trival" coverage of the article. If I am missing adequate secondary coverage that meets WP:RS, please point those out.  As I indicated to THEBITES, if you can point to specific adequate secondary sources in the article, I would be more than happy to agree and change my mind about the nomination.  Every time I have asked for the specific references, I am only presented with vague references to a publication, not a specific published article.   ttonyb  (talk) 06:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – I would deem the coverage in Park World and Attractions Management Magazine (,, , and  - as referenced in the article) as sufficient coverage that is non-trivial. As I explained in my previous comment above, these sources should be considered reliable ones. These sources are non-trivial because they are wholly about the company, its work and/or founder and are not "sources that simply report meeting times, shopping hours or event schedules" (which is the only criteria of trivial coverage that sort of applies here - all the other criteria is unrelated). As for the sources from local and international media, regardless of whether they have trivial coverage according to the guideline this still helps to establish notability. From WP:COMPANY: "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." According to the criteria in the audience section it is irrelevant whether the sources are trivial or non-trivial as neither of these are mention in the section quoted in its entirety above. The other two criteria do, but audience does not. Hopefully this clarifies what I am trying to say with the specific examples listed. I feel it passes all three areas of the notability guideline for companies.  Themeparkgc   Talk  07:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – Again, thanks for the explanation. It appears we will have a disagreement about the sources and their validity.  We may need to agree to disagree.  Let me discuss each one.   appears to be an article about their laser tag product and not really "non-trivial" coverage.  ] and  are articles about the company's CEO.  Granted it does mention the company, but again the article is about Harris.  In addition, since it sourced as his opinion (interview), it is not really secondary coverage.  this is really trivial coverage.  It is about the attraction, not the company.  The Attractions Management article is an article about the company's CEO.  Granted it does mention the company, but again the article is about Harris.  In addition, since it is an interview, it is not really secondary coverage.  Again, thanks for your explanation and my best to you.   ttonyb  (talk) 07:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – I agree to disagree as long as the article isn't deleted :P   Regards  Themeparkgc   Talk  07:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Comment Note To Closer: Please notice the single purpose account, and blocked editor who voted here. Tofutwitch11 - Chat - How'd I do?    21:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 13:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would advise the closing admin to look at this search, which it definately passes Verify test and in my opinion it has become a Noteworthy company for what it has accomplished in the entertainment business. So my advise, is to Strongly Keep this would be my close. BLUE DOG TN 04:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Weak delete. The nature of the events the company has been associated with are impressive, but notability is not inherited, and there's a lack of good quality independent citations.-- K orr u ski Talk 15:30, 3 December 2010 (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.