Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edgeworks Entertainment (2nd nomination)

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. Fabrictramp (talk) 23:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edgeworks_Entertainment

For a number of reasons, I believe this article warrants deletion, along with a similar article that both refer to each other. Notability is the biggest factor. The company has not done much work, and doesn't meet the basic notability criteria: "if the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject." WHILE THE SERIES MAY BE NOTABLE the company itself is not, and if the paragraphs relating to the completed projects, which already refer to the SERIES PAGES were removed, what would be left would be a publicity article. As well, all the references to notability talk about the SERIES not the company. Until the company has produced more work, all information should be relegated to the SERIES PAGES rather than this company page. UnderPressure (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I am also nominating the following related page because of Notability (the founder of this company has made a few student films and had some local recognition, a few minor awards, but does NOT meet the eligibility requirement for a creative professionals. As well the information is not all verifiable at this time:

This is obviously an issue that we disagree on, and I've always found that Wikipedians can sometimes confuse "notability" with whether they care about it or not, (and I'm including myself in that statement as well). With that in mind, it can be hard to see whose point about notability is more objectively accurate. Luckily, Wikipedia has given us concrete criteria to appeal to...

Edgeworks Entertainment - The Wikipedia:Notability (web) lists three criteria for notability for a website, and it clearly says that a website is deemed notable if it meets any ONE of those criteria. The first is that it be the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, the second that it has won recognized awards, and the third that it is distributed through an independent and respected medium. Of those, Edgeworks has the first and third in the bag, (it was on the front page of several city-wide magazines, it had an entire chapter in a published book, and it was covered on NPR for the first, and it was distributed in a shrink-wrapped DVD on the cover of a British (thus, international) magazine for four months for the third). The second it doesn't really meet, (the awards Edgeworks has won are more niche in nature). However, as a webcompany, Edgeworks meets plenty of the Web criteria to be notable.

As for the assertion that the series is notable but not the company, there are two reasons to keep it the way it is: first, a previous deletion process, (which was ENTIRELY necessary and valid), eliminated the Forsaken and Codex Series pages and merged them into Edgeworks. The Edgeworks page was, very early in its history, established as the solution to having too many pages about this company. However, this is not a good enough reason to keep it. The Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) lists only one criteria for a notable organization: that it be well-covered in independent sources. To that end, many, if not most, of the sources on these pages (Dallas Observer, Houston Press, etc) discuss the group of filmmakers as much or more than the series itself, and a few (mtvU, NPR) focus almost entirely on the production and business aspects of the company. The NPR interview, for example, was for the show "Marketplace," a business-oriented program, and it was all about Microsoft's legal arguments toward machinima companies and filmmakers. These sources cover Edgeworks and its producers specifically, in addition to the series.

As a webcompany, Edgeworks meets more than the required number of criteria for notability. As an organization, it solidly meets the criteria for notability. And as a company, separate from its series, it has been covered in numerous independent and reliable sources. It is, objectively and aside from anyone's personal feelings, notable.

Alexander Winn - Despite having been official selection or winner at 17 national and international film festivals before he turned 20, (not "a few" awards and "local" recognition), arguments over quantity and quality of film festivals is irrelevant for this article, because Wikipedia:Notability (people) only gives one criteria: that the person be covered in reliable, independent sources. And, as you pointed out, they should be independent from the series he produced to justify having his own page. However, the mtvU piece was called "Machinima Master" and was not about The Codex by any stretch of the imagination, it was about Winn. The other filmmakers at Edgeworks were barely featured at all, and the series was mentioned as Winn's project, not Winn as the series' creator. Also, the NPR piece was, as mentioned earlier, about companies and filmmakers, not the series. Winn was brought on as an expert, and he was the only machinima producer to be featured in the piece, his was not one voice among many. I think that an entire story on a national television channel about one person irrefutably counts as "deep" coverage, as does the person being considered the sole relevant expert on a highly respected national radio program, but taken together they clearly indicate notability according to Wikipedia's guidelines, especially when added to Winn's numerous awards and other accolades.

However, while both Edgeworks and Winn's articles do meet notability and should not be deleted, I agree that they are not perfect, and I would not oppose an "Expand" or "Clean Up" tag on either or both of them. I agree that the Edgeworks page is mostly a description of the series, as you said, but the company is notable, and more can be added to the article to allay your objections. The same goes for the Winn article: it can be expanded and revised, but it is notable. Therefore, assuming good faith, and believing that you are as interested as I am in doing what Wikipedia's guidelines should objectively lead us to, I suggest that we remove the tags for deletion and replace them with "Expand" and/or "Clean Up" tags. Any objection? Tex Murphy (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia:INSPECTOR --Faith (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.