Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bird Studios

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. - Mailer Diablo 16:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bird Studios

Bird Studios (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

prod tag removed, still unsure of notability, so submitting for afd Oscarthecat 13:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Deletion objection

I refer to my previous objection... That is... if my studios is not 'noteworthy' then nor are 80% of the other animation/media studios listed on Wiki... such as the ones I listed previously. What constitutes noteability? The actual histories of animation, computer animation and digital animation on Wiki... are indeed very thin, I agree. I also see that Wiki does also just list 'things' too.

Maybe it is deemed that Bird Studios have not contributed enough to the industry, although I would disagree and again refer to the 'balance' of studios that Wiki does represent.

My argument is purely that Bird Studios is as relevant as most of the other studios that you list... excepting the obvious Disney/Pixar (maybe they are the only 'noteable' studios that should be included on Wiki) and that if Bird studios is deleted, then so should 80% of the other studios listed here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.37.116.124 (talk • contribs)

    • See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, if there are other non-notable studios, please nominate them for deletion too (in good faith, of course). Do reliable sources write about Bird Studios? Magazines, newspapers, etc.? Then cite those sources. That's what notability is on Wikipedia. --W.marsh 14:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Looks to me like there's some very strong notability in the article, including some very big-name music clients like Soundgarden and Pet Shop Boys. Find a source or two and this article is just fine. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - seems notable, just poorly written. ikh (talk) 16:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Starblind--JForget 18:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Noone but the employees/owner of the studio contribute to this page, it is the only thing they contribute to and even after previous discussion they've refused to cite sources for all of the talent they've supposedly worked with. If we remove all the claims on the page that aren't backed up with references, the studio could be three guys in their basement claiming to have worked on their favorite albums. I waited an entire month to see if there would be any other contributions but there haven't been. There is also a major problem with WP:ADVERT and WP:POV here not to mention a conflict of interest for all of the editors who have made content contribution. It just doesn't belong in the encyclopedia Adam McCormick 18:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - Quick search indicates the studio certainly exists (press release) and an Iron Maiden fansite indicates a British magazine called 3DWorld covered the project mentioned in the press release in 2003. (posting here) I think there's enough notability here for an article, someone's just going to have to dig for it or we need a Wikipedian in the British 3D design industry to weigh in. --Korranus 22:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per the above, multiple non-trivial coverage of this subject exist which document its notability. Burntsauce 23:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Not only does this read like an advert and have no references, the only contributers have admitted COI. The contributers have been adding references, but they keep getting removed because they either make no sense, are spam or don't actually serve as references. I have no current objection to an article being written on the subject, but I do have a strong objection to this one. If someone else writes a referenced article on Bird Studios that does not read like an advert-that's fine with me. The issue here is not notability, but spam. Also, if someone else writes this articles properly, the contributers with COI need to behave differently. They need to provide legitimate sources for their claims and they should avoid editing the article directly but should leave comments on the talk page. Miss Mondegreen talk  07:16, May 31 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Credible sources exist, but the article is in dire need of cleanup, as stated in prior comments. --JayJasper 13:18, 1 June 2007 (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.