Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pendant Productions

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 delete.

While several links have been provided, these fail to demonstrate the multiple non-trivial coverage required by the coprorations guideline. Further, it's entirly possible for a company's output to be notable (for example, had a larger number of sources been provided regarding distributions of an episode) while the parent company remained only "worthy" enough to be a redirect to that output.

Not that that's the case here, simply stressing the point.

brenneman 05:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pendant Productions

Pendant Productions (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

Nonnotable radio/fanfic production company. Vigorously contested speedy (see article talk page), so moving here for debate. NawlinWiki 14:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

As was mentioned on that talk page of the article, Pendant Productions shows have been broadcast on the BBC and U.S. radio stations. Since those radio stations are notable enough to have their own wiki articles, then Pendant should be notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Pendant is not something isolated to a small corner of the Internet. It has thousands of listeners on the web and more on the radio. Something that is broadcast internationally must be notable.

Pendant shows have aired on CHLY-FM radio in Canada. http://www.chly.ca/

Pendant shows currently feature on "The Pendant Audio Power Hour" on KTDR-FM in Del Rio, Texas, every Sunday night. http://www.ktdrfm.com/ http://www.ktdrfm.com/Default.aspx?tabid=115390

Clips from Pendant show "James Bond: To The End" were featured on the program "Saturday Live" on BBC4 radio. http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/arts/

Arrangments are being made to air Pendant shows on the radio in New Zealand.

Brendan 16:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Big Finish Productions is a for-profit radio drama company that has less "big press" notoriety than Pendant Productions does, merely lengthier descriptions of its programming. Pendant is non-profit and has been a pioneer in the field of digitalized voice acting. More on the talk page. Folklore Fanatic 16:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Give this article one night as it is rounded out by multiple users, and you will see it's not spam. Pendant is not for profit, and its not my website. Its just a very popular source online of audio seriels, with thousands of listeners and subscribers on iTunes.

This is advertising. Something doesn't have to be for-profit to be spam. Obviously, this is non-profit because they are using intellectual property belonging to others. If they charged a fee, they would be sued. IrishGuy talk 00:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
It's no different than an entry for NBC, ABC, CBS or Fox. Pendant simply

another entertainment content provider. Those other entries list the history of the networks and even their current air schedule. If they allow that, how can they not allow this?

There is more than a little difference between this and NBC. NBC is notable and meets all the criteria for inclusion. This doesn't. IrishGuy talk 01:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm just curious as to how encyclopaedic pages that link to NBC.com, ABC.com, CBS.com, etc. are any less 'spammy.' All of the websites in place for major TV studios, movie production companies, universities, etc are electronic advertising for entertainment/educational systems that started (and for the most part, remain) independent of the web. Whenever someone clicks on NBC.com, s/he becomes a unique visitor to a site OVERTLY designed for advertising purposes. Pendant Productions may not be a message board like FLAVA was or Voice Acting Alliance is, but they were one of the first collaborative studios to successfully form a 'virtual actors' studio' that mass-produced serialized fictional shows in mp3 format. Profit or non-profit status is ultimately irrelevant because Pendant has set a standard for quality that passes muster with internationally recognized studios. Just because Clurman, Crawford and Strasberg don't appear in the credits doesn't mean that Pendant hasn't been a large influence on narrative podcasting. Folklore Fanatic 03:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
They are less "spammy" because they are notable. Either this is becoming a sockpuppet convention or the subject of this article is sending people here. You and Queen of blades47 made your first edits here. IrishGuy talk 07:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Again, 'notable' is only in your POV. Did you even BOTHER to check my IP address before calling me a sock puppet? No, of course not. That would be too difficult. If you can't tell the stylistic differences of I spent two hours editing the entry on "Guinevere" last night, then I surfed over to some voice acting pages and did a search for a site I frequent, since I thought it would be included on here like many other art forms and workshops are. This is not my first time at Wikipedia, just the first time I bothered to register. I wanted people to recognize when I spoke. You have not made a compelling argument as to what is or is not notable, and I for one learned a lot about the istory of online voice acting from Wikipedia's in-depth coverage of FLAVA and VAA. This place is supposed to be a repository of information. It's really not the place of spam moderators to decide what does or does not have enough artistic merit to be 'notable.' Folklore Fanatic 16:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


As I said: Pendant has thousands of listeners, how many more before its notable?

The alexa ranking doesn't make the site very popular. Googles predominately brings forth blogs that mention Pendant. Verifiable notability from recognized media is lacking. IrishGuy talk 02:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Define 'recognized media.' If a tv show never makes its way into Time Magazine or the NYT, then it technically doesn't exist? I personally do not recognize the Fox News Channel as 'verifiable' media, but a lot of people disagree with me. Still others no longer subscribe to any form of print media at all because they read all of their news online (having worked at a large media news magazine, I can say this with a certain degree of authoritative knowledge), and now Google mixes in articles from blogs into its news search results in a non-filterable way. Again, how do you define recognized when some people watch You Tube channels more than Dateline NBC? In the podcasting world, Pendant is a longstanding site with dependable broadcasts. Its directors make guest appearances on other radio shows. Its shows are aired on live radio stations. Folklore Fanatic 03:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Recognized media is outlined in the criteria for inclusion. IrishGuy talk 07:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
And the list of links that someone else added (Yourockmywalrus?) to the page more than meets those criteria. Folklore Fanatic 16:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Pendant has been featured on BBC radio and other outlets. I'll tell you the other ones as soon as i get the full list (sometime soon)

Pendant was miss-said as a company. They are a not-for-profit fanbased club community, with a few of their own features as well, that are meant to entertain those who listen. This would not be considered spam if the original writer of the wiki had used the words "fan-based community." All he wanted was to make information about the content easy to find, not advertise. I am user queen_of_blades 47 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Queen of blades47 (talk • contribs)

Whether they are out for profit or not, it is still advertising. IrishGuy talk 02:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Then technically all the stuff that advertises fanfiction is also spam. As well as the stuff that recognizes blogging, TV, and other things of that nature. There is nothing wrong with posting information about things like that. It is valuable information to the community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Queen of blades47 (talk • contribs)
Actually, there is somthing wrong with posting information like that. Wikipedia is not a venue for advertising. Article subjects must be notable. IrishGuy talk 02:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Fine. So delete all artists, musicians, actors, TV shows, literature and novelists that haven't shown up in a newspaper. But you're not going to do that, because that would be defeating the purpose of Wikipedia. You're answering several well thought-out and reasonable arguments with unjustified one-line answers, and I find that to be unacceptable when you're arguing about the historical value of art. Folklore Fanatic 16:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Big Finish Productions is the perfect example of a for-profit company having an established and unchallenged page on Wikipedia, yet it does all of the things that Pendant Productions does. Folklore Fanatic 16:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

There's an ability to be notable because he is receiving information from more than one source and site.

This is an arguement for why this article should stay, and i'm going to be adding it to the page as well:

Pendant shows have aired on CHLY radio in Canada. http://www.chly.ca/

Pendant shows currently feature on "The Pendant Audio Power Hour" on KTDR FM in Del Rio, Texas, every Sunday night. http://www.ktdrfm.com/ http://www.ktdrfm.com/Default.aspx?tabid=115390

Clips from Pendant show "James Bond: To The End" were featured on the program "Saturday Live" on BBC4 radio. http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/arts/ Yourockmywalrus 02:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

This page is not much different than Tiki Bar TV. The only difference is that it is a group that produce more than one podcast and are aired on multiple stations. Only1skeemer 03:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

There are also other sites that have interviews about the shows, and information on it on other sites such as

http://www.supermanhomepage.com/multimedia/multimedia.php?topic=radio-kal

http://www.scifisite.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=2064&hl=pendant+productions

http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=9490 --queen_of_blades47

So how many different references do you need to see that this a valid enty, Mr. Irishguy? Also, you have already allowed another wiki entry, so it is only fitting that you would allow this one.

Pendant not only produces the fan shows, but is producing three original shows: The Kingery, Seminar and This Week In Pendant! while remaining non-profit. In many respects this is very much an active workshop. A Wiki entry strikes me less as a promotional item that an FAQ and summary of what the group does. It's no more spam than an entry for me as a writer (Steven E. McDonald) would be, or an entry for me in my composer guise (David Alexander McDonald.)Wyldemusick 04:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

What they produce is irrelevant. The fact that they fail the criteria for inclision is relevant. IrishGuy talk 07:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
IrishGuy, Forgive the formatting and other errors I might make in procedure, I ask your indulgence since i haven't posted on Wikipedia since the last attempt to gag Trek fan productions. You are talking to many new users here so could you please do them the courtesy of defining your terminology. I am speaking specifically about your insistence that this or that meets "criteria". It is (or was when *I* used to post) common courtesy to link to Wikipedia definitions and protocols, could I ask your indulgence in doing so now?
As regards your idea that it is advertising, I find it novel but ultimately untenable. Advertising is "paid communication through a non-personal medium in which the sponsor is identified and the message is controlled." A Wikipedia article is neither paid, non-personal nor controlled. the only reference close to relevance here is "Other non-profit organizations are not typical advertising clients, and rely upon free channels, such as public service announcements." so at best you can say is that this organisation is an atypical advertiser. Please explain your premise more clearly so that we may be illuminated.
Might I cut to the chase and tell you what this is going to hinge on? Notability. It always does. Wikipedians will insist that is up to the users who want to create the new article to show that the subject is notable (a concept that, the last I heard, was still contested as a hard-and-fast guideline - update here, please?). Criteria for notability will be IMDB listing, Google hits and significant mention in mainstream media. I'm not familiar with the alexa ranking mentioned above but from a statistical viewpoint you really should say not popular compared to *what*. Compared to NBC? Compared to Alfred E. Neuman? Please be specific so that we may understand your viewpoint. It would be nice to think that the argument about speedy deletion will not be decided on inaccurate or inappropriate data. Knowing, as i do that you wish this discussion to be fair and balanced also, I am sure you will help us in this.
As a reporter on fan productions of some modest standing I can tell you that Pendant Productions and Darker Projects (in part due to their common ancestry) represent seminal groups in the field of fan audio productions and are now leaders in the growing movement of fan production groups that are heading towards Indie production. These groups are even further along the line towards independant production than Star Trek: New Voyages and Star Trek: of Gods and Men - fan productions that have had scads of mainstream media publicity. The difference is simply one of scale and media, the precedent that they might set with their success could easily be seen as an example for video, TV and Movie production.
Could you perhaps explain, sir, how you believe them *not* to be notable? I await edification.
Kirok of L'Stok
----------------batlHa' vangIu'taHvIS quv chavbe'lu' ---------------
------ One does not achieve honour while acting dishonourably ------
--Kirok of L'Stok 15:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

IMDB does not list ANY podcast shows that I know of; it's a film/TV-based web site. Now, what is the IMDB of radioplays/podcasting? Dramapod? iTunes? Can there even be only one website that dictates what is and is not 'notable' about any particular art form? That notion seems completely misguided at best and aristocratic and erroneous at worst. The neutral historical representation of pioneers in a specific artistic field appears to be exactly the sort of information that searchers on a modern encyclopedia intend to find. Folklore Fanatic 16:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

This is true, sir, I used IMDB as an example from my previous experience with fan films. In this case you have a valid point: what yardstick of excellence can be applied to an audio drama? I had a brief look at the alexa ratings site and sadly Pendant productions does rate poorly against the likes of Google, MSN and Yahoo. Perhaps the mighty Wikipedia site itself might rate a mention against such greats but the average organisations website cited on Wikipedia? I doubt it! Again I ask, pendant rates poorly against what?
As regards the concept of notability as a criteria for inclusion, believe me I've had it out on this subject before. Such is the paradox of Wikipedia (I have to leave for work in 5 minutes so i can't link all this) Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and can have a virtually limitless numbers of articles yet Wikipedians insist that it should not be clogged up with inconsequential material. It's just one of those mysteries of life that only the very wise (and Wikipedian) can answer.>(-_-)<
--Kirok of L'Stok 18:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Kirok, I'm not responding to your comments so much as backing them up. I'm NOT IrishGuy, and I support the inclusion of artistic sites like Pendant that provide context to the dawn of new media such as podcasting. See my above comments rebutting IG's arguments. Check the signature at the end of a comment and also whether or not it is indented. Furthermore, I'm a woman. ;) Folklore Fanatic 19:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not Irishguy either! I'm trying to be helpful and keep the page because there are others like it. I don't think they should consider it spammable unless the person says that that all he's, or she's, going to do for the article. Queen of blades47 23:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


[Copied by queen_of_blades47 from the talk page]!!!

The whole idea of notability is fraught with problems. Notability is not an absolute measure - there is no brass rod of notability in Paris that we can measure things against. Notability is a relative term, it is an abstract and like all abstracts (truth, beauty ...) it means different things to different people. To a fan of one of the genres that Pendant et al produce works for (for the same goes for many fan productions), they are significant. Significant to the stage of having fans of fans! To an afiscionado of professional audio dramas they represent a modern phenomena, similar in it's way to all endeavours where "everyman" contributes towards his own entertainment or edification. Dare I point out that Wikipedia is a prime example of the same movement in the field of information technology? Well, yes, I dare. To someone outside these circles they (Pendant) represent a fascet of the said movement, but only to a smaller extent. So small an extent in fact that they would only be found if they were looking for them.
Isn't that the purpose of Wikipedia though? To provide information, knowledge, for those who come looking for it. The next time someone comes looking for information on audio dramas are you going to say, "Yeah I remember we had some people who wanted to submit an article about that subject but we decided it wasn't notable so we deleted it." In that case gentlemen, you will have failed Everyman by picking and choosing for him in advance what you decide is notable enough for him. You can, of course tell him to go to a specialist Wiki but that simply marginalises Wikipedia - setting boundaries on something that should have none.
I can wax philosphical about it until the cows come home but it is all wasted if some young Everyman, disguised as a would-be Wikipedian, simply repeats doctrine as if it is some protective mantra to keep the problematical articles at bay, the ones that require judgement, that require what used to be called wisdom. I say again, if you expect new users to respect Wikipedia's protocols then the process cannot be slipshod. Define terms, link to Wiki policies, admit when doctrine is not Canonical, merely apochryphal and above all show flexibility where the guidelines allow it.
In this case the new users have given evidence that Pendant productions is notable within the fan and Audio drama community the question to ask is - is that notability significant to mainstream society? Considering the frequency with which fan productions and new media arises as a subject in media such as Wired, SlashDot and even the New York Times, i would suggest that fan and indie productions are a movement of vital importance that will be viewed in the future in the same way that we now look back on the rise of fanzines and fan fiction.
The article just needs some work, that's all - why not ask an admin with experience in Wikifying articles to give advise to these new users? If that fails I would say that a general article on Fan Audio dramas covering pendant et al would be a must. I'd be tempted to contribute meself.
Yr Obd Servant
Kirok of L'Stok--Kirok of L'Stok 15:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The applicable guideline here is WP:CORP, and I see no evidence in the article that the organisation meets these tests. In particular, there's no evidence that anyone unconnected with the organisation has written about it. Eludium-q36 18:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
There are links to non-Pendant things that support evidence to which states that WP:CORP is in effect. Look in external links!Queen of blades47 11:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

-- You apparently didn't search hard enough.... they're featured in a wikipedia article about Star Trek Fan productions as well as an article on the BBC Radio website, amongst other popular sites on the internet. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/saturdaylive/2006/11/james_bond_to_the_end.html -- perhaps wikipedia should put a new standard in place... People who are incapable of utilizing the internet for their research, or have no experience in a given topic, should not have their opinions counted... or even represent the company as a 'moderator'... Makes sense.

There's no evidence that everyone here is a member of Pendant, either. There's no evidence that you aren't from some anti-podcasting movement somewhere in space and time, for example. That entire line of thought is irrelevant and untenable. Furthermore, Under the Criteria for notability for web content, Pendant Audio clearly meets guidelines 1 and 3 as demonstrated by the multiple examples cited here, in the article itself, and on the talk page *multiple times.* Folklore Fanatic 20:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Pendant meets the "Criteria for clubs, societies, and organizations" as it has multiple mentions in various media - which are detailed in the article.

In response to the statement, "there's no evidence that anyone unconnected with the organisation has written about it,":

What evidence is there to see? How can you tell the difference between a Pendant fan and a Pendant creator in the way they post an episode guide or cast list?

Plus - the article meets the criteria for Fiction, as is detailed here: WP:FICT

Oh, also meets the critiria for Web content: WP:WEB as it is broadcast on FM radio.

Brendan 19:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

IrishGuy -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Play_it_by_Ear_Productions <-- they are nowhere near as notable as Pendant, and yet somehow this article remains. Are you trying to say this article is up for deletion as well? How about the Amateur Voice Acting article? How about the Negavision article? How about the article on fandubs? In fact, what about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icebox_Radio_Theater ?? I haven't heard of these guys before, and I've been around the online voice acting community for roughly 10 years. I know people who are in the voice acting industry, and have been for 30 years who are no more aware of them as I am -- I'd also take their opinion over your own given their credentials. Is this what it is going to take? Or is Wikipedia full of power-hungry moderators putting their opinions of what should be considered as information -- if that is the case, then it does defeat the purpose of this entire organisation... ETA: Also, IrishGuy, it is spelled "Pendant Productions"... Google pulls up the following: http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=pendant+productions&meta= .... In fact, you'll also noticed they're refered to in an existing article on Fanbased Star Trek projects... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_fan_productions ... as well as a reference on the BBC website: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/saturdaylive/2006/11/james_bond_to_the_end.html ....

Friends a note of moderation here. The purpose of this discussion is to mediate a solution that will make Wikipedia a better and stronger online resource and for those who wish to create this article to see it remain on the site as a good example rather than something that is just tolerated. Wikipedia has a guideline called "assuming good faith" WP:AGF (could someone link that for me? I'm not lazy just very, very rusty) wherby to keep debate civil you should assume "that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it." Yes, this includes the people who tag things for deletion. There have been some <coughWCMcough> who have taken advantage of this ruling to attempt to cut a swathe ... well, it's water under the bridge now.

The point is that like a gardener needs to prune a plant to make it stronger, Wikipedia needs to be kept clear of inconsequential articles that are put on the site for reasons other than to inform and educate society - vanity, commercial gain etc.

You new Users will be the prime movers in creating the article on Pendant productions (assuming the guillotine does not fall!) and need to take on board the comments here to make the article stronger and better to counter the same problems later. For example Eludium-q36 (I remember that!) says "I see no evidence in the article that the organisation meets these tests. In particular, there's no evidence that anyone unconnected with the organisation has written about it." So place links in the article to address this. Don't wait for a clearance from the establishment, work on the article now.

On the note of "evidence that anyone unconnected with the organisation has written about it." I must shake my head sadly that my fame as an independant reporter of fan productions has not spread to you, Eludium-q36, for I write regular updates about Star Trek: Defiant on Hailing Frequencies Open, the newsletter of Trekunited with a circulation of thousands (check the website for details). You see this is where the statistics fall down. Have you Googled or checked Alexa or whatever for the individual show names? Try Star Trek: Defiant for one. Friend, when people talk about Star Trek they don't always mention CBS so googling CBS will not get every Star Trek reference! Goodness, what a sad indictment on the level of logic and maths taught today!

Friends lets work together to get this article online and set up as a good example of Wikipedia encyclopedic writing. Debate about it's notability is rapidly deteriorating (>sigh< as it usually does) into a popularity contest or a count of opinion rather than measurable citation and expert opinion as it should. Actually if 68.148.64.209 (registering a name would aid your credibility friend) has as much experience in the audio drama field as he (damn, there I go assuming it is a he again!) says then i would cite them as expert opnion.

is there any serious opposition to this article going ahead? If so please post so that we may get some closure on this.

In service to the fleet!

Kirok of L'Stok--Kirok of L'Stok 11:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I think those in favor of this article have made their points, and those against its inclusion - have faltered in proving that Pendant is not noteworthy. It's time for the "Article marked for deletion" tag to be removed. Brendan 03:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - I don't see any indication that -any- reliable secondary source have articles about this subject, and I don't see any indication that Pendant Productions passes any measure of notability in WP:CORP. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:32, 29 January 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.