Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lantern 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 keep. A separate editorial consensus can be decided as to whether the articles should be merged, changed, or moved. COI and edit warring are separate issues that can be reported at the appropriate noticeboards. Any decision should be as a result of consensus. Mkdw ^talk 23:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lantern Entertainment

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While Lantern Entertainment is a new corporate form, it is basically The Weinstein Company as having bought their assets and hired most of their staff, basically buying the Weinstein Company. Requesting deletion so The Weinstein Company can be moved to Lantern Entertainment. DreamWorks Studios/Pictures, Marvel Entertainment (Marvel Entertainment Group, Inc., ToyBiz/Marvel Enterprise/Marvel Entertainment Inc, Marvel Entertainment, LLC) and The Disney Company (Disney Productions, The Disney Company/Disney Enterprise, The Disney Company - post CC/ABC merger) all follow this route - that the change in business form does not create a new subject and thus article. Spshu (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:48, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question @Spshu: You seem to be proposing a merge/redirect of The Weinstein Company to Lantern Entertainment, which doesn't require AfD involvement. Can you clarify why you're bringing it here, rather than merging the content directly (presumably after seeking consensus on the article talk pages)? Bakazaka (talk) 03:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Weinstein Company was already move to Lantern Entertainment and some one got it moved back with out much discussion (history page is confusing - it looks like it was done by several editors). At the talk page, it was two Lantern employees requesting the split - we don't do PR for them, thus no original discussion for LE/TWC to be move back to TWC. I am proposing that Lantern Entertainment be deleted, so The Weinstein Company (TWC) article can be renamed to Lantern Entertainment, as far as I know with the Lantern article existing I cannot do it (an administrator can). I had already update The Weinstein Company article with the Lantern Entertainment name change, only for another editor to revert it. As is the Lantern Entertainment on its own does not have any notability. Spshu (talk) 13:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I may have address your issue from the wrong direction. Yes, this could have been done under Speed Deletion G6. Technical deletions. (page to be moved). But given above move, I expected resistance as indicate by Hayholt's reversion. Spshu (talk) 14:40, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, Speedy Keep under WP: SKCRIT#2D. Based on the explanation above, this nomination seems to be an attempt to settle a content dispute without achieving consensus on article talk pages. Neither article needs to be deleted or moved, given that anyone can merge content from The Weinstein Company into Lantern Entertainment without deleting or moving either article. The talk page discussion on The Weinstein Company does not have a merge proposal listed, but the discussion there seems to be divided on making a single article in any event, and at least one experienced editor there (who is not a Lantern Entertainment employee) suggests keeping two articles. Bakazaka (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Merging content from The Weinstein Company into Lantern Entertainment would separate EDITING HISTORY (against WP:ATTREQ) as TWC is the longer article, @Bakazaka:. Thus anyone suggesting or doing "given that anyone can merge content from The Weinstein Company into Lantern Entertainment without deleting or moving either article". Thus SPEEDY DELETION G6. Technical deletions: "For copy-and-paste page moves that need to be temporarily deleted to make room for a clean page move." This was a move that done before then reverted with out discussion. Yes, give DDG then Hayholt, some one would have opposed the Speedy deletion. There is next to no content on Lantern Entertainment that isn't on TWC or related articles, just need to changed the current name, logo, etc. So there is no content dispute. Spshu (talk) 18:00, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution can be addressed with histmerge. There is even a place to go for help: Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. It's clear what you think ought to be done, but there's no consensus for that, and taking this issue to AfD bypasses the basic operation of the encyclopedia. I encourage you to re-engage in discussion on article talk pages, and settle this content dispute through dispute resolution channels. Bakazaka (talk) 18:17, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also curious, and agree with with User:Bakazaka. Also, why have only 1 article instead of two? They are 2 separate brand names and essentially two different companies, but not the same enough for a continuation. Hayholt (talk) 12:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are enough of the same as the new owners bought the core set of assets of TWC. As changing names, business forms or owner/parent company doesn't not constitute "essentially two different companies" as explain in the above AfD nominations or we would have multiple Disney articles. Marvel Comics in its Timely and Atlas eras operated under dozens of corporate entities such that the next issue of the same title might be under a different corporate name. It is Marvel's long history that gets them separate articles. There were "essentially two different" DreamWorks, DW Studios, LLC that was the remainder of the original DreamWorks and owned by Paramount then the restarted DreamWorks, which took some projects in the works from the old DW Studios. This (TWC→LE) amounts to a name change along with a business form change not a new business. Spshu (talk) 13:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Obviously notable as de facto continuation of TWC. Just merge the content out of AfD per WP:BURO; there's plenty of sources for all of this and deletion isn't going to happen. Nate • (chatter) 13:46, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- But they being BURO, citing different legal form for not recognizing TWC as LE. DreamWorks II was a defacto continuation of the first DreamWorks thus was kept together. Spshu (talk) 13:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Question. How can you consider likely outcome a reason to support your position that is like WP:MAJORITY (some argument to avoid), but before too many have even posted a position? I have been shot down in attempts to split DreamWorks and Marvel Entertainment, so considering it likely, seem a bit brash to assume. Spshu (talk) 14:40, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Consider my vote! changed to Speedy Keep then per Bakazaka; you're trying to use AfD to TNT an article without cause and going past our other procedures regarding merge/splits. We're not here to discuss other quixotic split attempts, just this article in particular. Nate • (chatter) 17:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep separate brands. But entirely different except for assets. Also they wsnt to distance themselves from TWC for obvious reasons. Hayholt (talk) 14:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, we don't answer to the company. Renaming is at times "separate branding". Spshu (talk) 14:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Again, Not necessary to treat this as a continuation for a variety of reasons. Hayholt (talk) 14:46, 31 October 2018 (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.