Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talent holding deal


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure)  HurricaneFan 25  00:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Talent holding deal

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not suitable. —> εϻαd ιν  ΤαΙk Ͼδητrιβμτιoης 14:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not actually sure what the rationale for deletion is in the nomination, but looking at the article, it looks kind of like a WP:DICDEF in its current form. It appears to be a very common term within that industry, thus not a WP:NEO, and the current info (although unsourced) is correct.  I'm guessing it *might* be capable of turning into a valid article that is notable and useful.  Withholding judgement at this time, tagging for rescue to allow someone to attempt a fix. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Possible Keep This seems to be a definite type of contract. With sourcing and more information it would be worthy of an article. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment It needs more information. —> εϻαd ιν  ΤαΙk Ͼδητrιβμτιoης 18:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm adding information now. The problem I'm having is context.  I can find tons of examples, and understand the concept as it is a type of retainer, but direct references are a bit hard to find because of all the example uses and simple mentions. About to dive into Google Books, I'm sure I can find something there that is specific to the subject matter.  My confidence is high that we can source it properly.  Won't be a huge article, but the concept is noteworthy.  Still withholding my !vote, but trying to make it worthy of a keep before declaring it so.  Dennis Brown (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep up the good work. —> εϻαd ιν  ΤαΙk Ͼδητrιβμτιoης 18:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think at this point, it is close to what I can do.  I find it is similar to what is called a "development deal" (although that is more often used in music and software contracts) and we have an article on Artist development deal, which is in much worse shape, and maybe could be merged (not much in cites) and redirected here.  The problem is finding a cite for the specific definition of "talent holding deal" itself, although I think the weight of the references and uses both in the article and that can be found virtually everywhere on the web, make it almost self-explanatory.  I don't expect a withdrawal (but welcome it), but I think at this point, there is enough citation to warrant keeping, and will !vote as such below.  I understand why you nom'ed it, and was tempted to agree with you at first glance, but after a few hours of research, I have concluded the term needs to be included. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep for the reasons I mentioned above. It still needs work and could use a better reference for the primary definition, but I think that the examples within the article clearly demonstrate the notability of the term, and that it is in common usage, and it is a distinct type of contract that warrant inclusion because it is very common, talked about in so many reliable sources (granted, as it is applied, not as a concept) and the likelihood that more citations exist, particularly in printed media.  The nom was in good faith, but the article needs some good old fashioned work, not deletion.  Dennis Brown (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment The term "artist" in this article clearly does not mean a visual arts artist, so I removed the link to that article. However, the term does need some definition, or perhaps the word "entertainer" should be followed by other television and film terms, such as actor, singer, musician, even perhaps director or scriptwriter.  This article is about what is clearly a term of art in the TV, film and music industries, and should be expanded, with better writing. I am not the editor to do that, so I am hoping that others will step up. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Click Google news archive search at the top of the AFD. Over 500 results where this term was used in the news.  The first one is about HBO signing someone to a talent holding deal.  So it is a real thing, and something that gets coverage, plus common sense that an encyclopedia should include every type of contract there is.   D r e a m Focus  00:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I started the article because it was a red (dead) link from another page. I did not know what the term meant. As someone else pointed out there are numerous articles on Google (which is where I got the information) about this. I don't have time in the day to do excessive editing and felt the page was needed and could have been expounded upon by someone else. I think the page is needed for people like me that had never heard the term before. After all, isn't that what wiki is all about? N8hawk (talk) 02:28, 21 November 2011 (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.