Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StudioBard

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. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] StudioBard

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

I will admit that I was a bit ("a bit" meaning "WAY") to premature to add a speedy tag to this article, almost immediately when it was created. However, at that time it did not assert importance, and now it kind of does. Google search brings up 140 results, however majority are unrelated or are from directory websites, neither of those support any notability. Seems to just be a basic list, comprised of original research, or conflict of interest, from the single-purpose account. Sure, the studio has done work for notable shows, but I don't believe the stuido itself is notable. Given that the article does not supply, and I cannot find any secondary, reliable sources, I do not believe this article meets WP:CORP. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 04:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Tough call, but I'm going to go Delete per Rjd0060. The studio is not notable in and of itself, despite work on other notable subjects. Similar to participants in the creation of other things that are notable - studios, artists, technicians etc. on blockbuster movies don't earn individual articles. AvruchTalk 06:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep The notability of the subject is proven. The studio is the only one in the area to have been recognized with an Academy Award nomination, has been involved in countless projects throughout the industry. StudioBard is known and respected throughout the region. They are responsible for work Nationally as well... at places like the International Tennis hall of Fame, the Seattle Museum of Flight and the Grand Canyon. and it seems that the decision as to the notability of a company should be determined by those in the industry, whose opinion and influence pertain to the subject at hand. Should someone who doesn't watch Star Trek decide whether 'Amok Time' is a notable episode? Does someone who has never played or watched baseball in Houston have the right to determine if the Crawford boxes are notable? There are countless examples in this ever-expanding volume of all human knowledge that support it's inclusion. Who on the playground gets to decide if the kid is cool enough for the monkey bars? Shouldn't everyone be allowed to try, to see if they can hang? Obviously, if the minimum criteria are met for inclusion, the subject should be included. The whole concept is to cover anything appropriate, relying on those who care about the subject to act as the custodian of knowledge. If someone goes to Wikipedia for information, they expect that the best current information is provided on a given subject, and they do not expect to discover that an article has been deleted because a few people who roam around policing articles about which they have no knowledge decided that the subject wasn't 'notable.' Let time decide. wait and see how much an article can grow over a year or so of interested visitors... if it doesn't... then consider an article of deletion, but until then... leave it alone. Studiomanager (talk) 01:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

— Studiomanager (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Rjd0060 (talk) 05:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment And they are the world's greatest too, right? Doesn't matter how much you say an entity is this that or the other thing, per Notability guidelines (see WP:CORP) the notability needs to be proven through Wikipedia determined reliable sources. For instance to prove the Academy Award a link to where they list it as a winner is needed (or coverage in the news media), or other coverage such as in Variety, The Oregonian, Portland Business Journal, The New York Times, USA TODAY, industry magazines, the AP, Willamette Week, etc. Notice I am not saying they are or are not notable. But the article does no establish that, and until it does, it is subject to deletion. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I have included the Wikipedia determined reliable sources now. I appreciate your input and welcome additional advice. Studiomanager (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, those links are reliable. However, the problem is they do not mention StudioBard, thus they do not provide substantial coverage as needed per WP:CORP/WP:NOTE. Simply working on something notable does not transfer notability, unless those efforts helped make them notable, in which case they would be mentioned. For instance with the Academy Award the directors were listed, so that would help with those people's notability. Substantial coverage of StudioBard in a reliable source would be something like an article on StudioBard in Variety. I just checked the Portland Business Journal which almost always has something for a Portland based company/enity, and there were zero results. The other thing is after only two weeks this Wikipedia article is already the number three item on a Google search for the studio, with less than 150 results overall. Unless you can dig up some substantial coverage, this fails notability guidelines. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete: while the studio seems to have done some notable work, the studio isn't notable. Google results StudioBard Portland best award: 42 hits, most of which are its projects. Perhaps this would be a good basis for a broader article like Recording and soundstage industry in Portland, Oregon? —EncMstr 00:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I visited six of the "reliable links", as claimed by the author, and found no mention of StudioBard in any. A read through Wikipedia:Reliable Sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability would help clarify what we're looking for; in any case, I don't see evidence of notability. The article is pretty clearly created as a self-promotion, since the author's work consists of this article and adding links to it on other pages - there's a clear conflict of interest here. Tijuana Brass (talk) 02:46, 29 November 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.