Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knight 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 of the debate was DELETE. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Knight Entertainment

mirror of Knight entertainment, NN DVD manufacturer Flapdragon 03:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

See also votes and comments at Knight entertainment, cited above. Flapdragon 03:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Here is the AfD discussion for the incorrectly capitalised entry: Knight entertainment. It's now a redirect.

Please delete other mirror site. The 'e' in title was not to be lower case. Also Delete User RCKNIGHT as it was my first atempt to create profile and I did not realize that it was case senitive. Rcknight profile matched my user log in.

• Do Not DeleteI have edited site to not show releases, or up comming release to aid in any issues with this article.

Other entries on Newgrounds such as Star Syndicate are allowed Wikipedia articles, then why not a DVD prodcution that features a animation of Newgrounds Mascot, or another series like Dr. Shroud? --Rcknight 04:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, advertising. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Do Not Delete There is no advertising, it is factual in nature only. You allow other flash series found on newgrounds like Neurotically Yours Please how mine is differnt?--Rcknight 05:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

You aso have the flash series found on Newgrounds known as Salad Fingers How is this not advertisment like mine?--Rcknight 05:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Also the mascot of Newgrounds the character Pico (Newgrounds.com) is on the Dr. shroud DVD production, and is a cartoon found on Newgrounds here - [1]. This character is worthy of his own article, when he has only appeared on a few flash entries, but the production and production company that contributes more to this character is not allowed to exist? These are facts presented on my article that directly relate to and go in conjunction with existing approved articles.--Rcknight 05:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Another Flash found on Newgrounds allowed to have an article Xombie--Rcknight 05:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Alien Hominid a creation of Tom Fulp ,like Pico feature on the Dr. Shroud DVD. Now tell me how this is an approved article, and not advertisement in comparrison to the current state of this article? If this article is in violation, then should every article that is related to a manufacture product that can be bought or sold.--Rcknight 06:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The character Pico (Newgrounds.com) is on the Dr. Shroud DVD production and is another fact that realted to other exisinting approved articles.--Rcknight 06:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Alien Hominid is a single production made by a new company and it is an accepted article. This particle has a production that is Newgrounds Related, as well as related to other articles. Also several more productions are in the works set to be released in 2006. FFC alone has 4 to 6 releases a year and is similar to otehr Mixed Martial Arts entries. Information added to this article will also be added to related articles. Several Flash Animated series do not even have DVd productions are allowed to have articles.--Rcknight 15:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

- I agree with the former writer.  This is no reason to consider this entry for deletion. Nsight7

Above comment by anon 70.112.39.83 --Aquillion 06:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Above comment pasted over from previous debate on other mirror site to be deleted. --Rcknight 15:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete NN site, sock support —Wahoofive (talk) 16:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - Dalbury 16:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --JJay 17:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Do Not DeleteThis Article Does Not Promote Nor Does It Advertise. It Is Factual In Nature Only and is similar to Articles listed above. No one who has taken the side of deletion has explained how this is and advertisement and the others are not. Also, there has been not supproting evidence as to why they feel this site varies from the others that have been listed above and are approved.--Rcknight 17:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ad. (Don't see any socks here, though, just lots of votes from the article's author.) AndyJones 18:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Do Not Delete I just made it late yeasterday, and I have yet to tell anyone about it due to the deletion ststus. I have yet to have anyone give me compelling reson why my article should not be allowed when some of the articles I have mentioned above are allowed? Most of the flash series you allow are just web sites. Knight Entertainment not only works with several differnt clients, more will be added upon the release of the 6 other projects currently in works. Those 6 were not listed because they are not a matter of fact until then. I also do not want to get accused of "promoting" them.

Give me a reason why the above articles were allowed to exist? If my site is an advertisement (I do not post any links to where to buy the DVD by the way. It is listed on over 30 web stores.) then the articles listed in my earlier comments are advertisments for their web sites. If there is no "stock" here, then why is there stock in articles that explain about web pages based on flash animation series? No one has dared to explain that to me. I have just as much stock if not more with an actual product.--Rcknight 20:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• The reason is that (as explained before) the subject of the article is not notable (NN). By the way your objection has been registered, there's no need to keep voting again and again. Flapdragon 20:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • So just making a web page is notable. (As in the examples I listed above.) But taking something in cyber space, and taking it to market in association with a variety of those notable web pages is not notable. I fail to see tha logic. Other DVD production are noted, and other flash series are noted, then why is a flash series taken to the DVD not notable? Of the 100's of flash animation, only 8 have made it to the DVD market. I am helping more to faciliate that need. --Rcknight 21:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete NN. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 21:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Rcknight, please stop blanking text on this page. Vandalism will not exactly help your case. Flapdragon 21:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I blanked it because that link and issue is over. It has no bearing on this subject, and it is misleading since it was due to an error on my part when setting up this article. I even noted that change as such.--Rcknight 22:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
    • There are other, different, comments there accumulated separately due to the confusion of having two mirrored entries. You also blanked the initial nomination of this page. Flapdragon 22:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable. Kingfox 22:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• I am still waiting for clearification on why my article is not notable, when it is more of a rare acomplishment then simply making a web page as sited articles listed above. In fact I am currently in talk with two of those flash animated series to aid them in the creation of DVD's prodcutions as well. Now if I--Rcknight 22:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC) were truly "promoting" or "advertising" I would have mentioned those facts, but I did not. If you are doing this just because I made it then delete it and i will have someone else create it, would that satisify your issues? I have noticed that the notion of advertisingment has not been used, but now it is a matter of not being noteable, when much more simple accomplishements have been noted. I keep stating my case because no one has yet to offer any compelling evidence to the contrary. It would take less time and effort for me to get someone to draw and create a flash series, and that would be notable. I have spent my time and efforts setting up a distribution network, DVD production editing studio, praphic arts design, and manufcaturing capaibilities to provide a cost effective way for underground series and productions a way for them to get their series to the main stream market. This is a far more complicated task then building a web site, and placing some flash animation on it. But my efforts are not notable. I still fail to see the logic in that, and have yet to hear otherwise from any of you. Then again I would doubt that any of you have a real concept of what it takes to get something to market in the mainstream media.

• Delete. Rcknight, lots of people here use other articles or previous decisions as precedent to stop their own advertising or non-notable pages from being deleted. It never works (in fact, it draws the attention of "deletionist" editors (like me?) and is thus counterproductive). Each Article for Deletion consideration is based on the article's own merits. The only way to avoid deletion of an article where people are generally anti is not to argue here, but instead to go back to the article and edit it to address the concerns. You have five days to do that between nomination and deletion, which is plenty of time to repair an article that looks like advertising or something non-notable. If it is either of those, you won't be able to clean it up and it will be deleted. If it isn't, you will easily reform the article and all will be well. But arguing - and especially arguing-by-exception - just won't work. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 23:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Redvers Olorin28 02:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. *drew 03:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• Do Not Delete I have made chages per the direction of REDVERS who actually offered constructive critisium, which is all that I have ever asked for. Please re-review and offer new opinion. Thanks! --Rcknight 23:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Reworking the article does not make its subject more notable. (Nor incidentally does voting over and over again.) Flapdragon 23:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• On the plus side, the more he says the more convinced I am that my delete vote is correct :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 12:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• Abstain If it stays, it needs a major reworking. The introduction reads like a press release. Include a list of publications. Tell me something about the history or the company. What's an "Affilate" in this context? Does Newgrounds really need 8 mentions? If it survives and these changes are not made, I would probably vote Delete in a second VfD, but I'll let it go for now. --Billpg 16:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Introduction edited, History and Publications added, Newground mentions limited. Afilate was used in an alternate to "Clinet" due to VfD comments above about "Advertising". Explaination of "Affilates" may be taken as advertising which is what I am tring to avoid as well. --Rcknight 16:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per the mirror entry. Dottore So 12:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Mirror entry already deleted. Now a redirect.--Rcknight 16:16, 7 November 2005 (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.