550:*We need to see how they satisfy the notability guidelines. Simply having an article about what they do isn't enough. We need to see discussions in reliable, third-party sources such as peer-reviewed journals, newspapers of record, prominent industry journals or the likes of a Time magazine talking about how the business had made an impact or detailing the history of the company, interviews with individuals connected with the business in such sources... This is basically what you would write on the back of a napkin to briefly explain it to someone. Notability implies they are more than a run-of-the-mill business, the article doesn't provide this. I'm not sure there are sources that can provide these facts; if there are, please provide them.
367:
would not be able to have their educational needs fulfilled, and deleting this page would not serve the purpose that
Knowledge was intended for. It is confusing as a public user when a dispute is being made with no preface to what a "notable" distribution company would entail. There are several dozen sources cited within these recent edits that show every statement has a press release to verify that it is a major contributor to film distribution and production.
377:
for people pursuing knowledge about film. This information not only has various citations in each section from a variety of news sources (not just "anime news sources" but reputable film websites.) However, all of this information about production and distribution is also displayed on end credits for these film titles. I believe that films at festivals like
Sundance should be accessible as public knowledge.
1056:
Notability is not inherited. If this company was notable, somebody would have written something "in depth" about the actual company using "Independent
Content". If you think a reference is out there, link it below and we can check for yourselves. Nothing I've seen and nothing I can find meets the mark so far.
705:
the organization, so claiming lack of significant coverage is incorrect. I understand and support the need for caution to ensure that
Knowledge is not a means of promotion, and we should ensure that articles about organizations are "written in an objective and unbiased style". Knowledge also combines
700:
do not qualify as high-quality reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking. Their articles cover a wide swathe of film-related activities that encompasses reviews, production updates, wider critical and audience reception, controversies where they appear, and what film-related organizations
372:
It has been mentioned in every post on this topic that no mod with professional knowledge of the validity of "anime news sources" has weighed in. In order to have an unbiased and informed discussion on the validity of this page's recent contributions, a moderator with a surface level of knowledge of
387:
I understand and respect any interpretation of my writing that would lead mods to decide to omit phrases, sentences, or details. I am completely open to any changes with my entry. However, the decision to delete or prevent my changes completely to a previous (poorly fact checked and biased) version
943:
are reliable sources that are independent of the topic. It is absurd to claim that these periodicals should be disqualified because they cover film, which a film company is inevitably involved with. It implies that no subject-specific publication should be allowed to be a reliable source for being
376:
The recent changes to the page, and the current existing changes that are still public, are all lists of films that are associated with Eleven Arts. A list of films and which year they were released theatrically (or re-released in a different country) is public information and valuable information
366:
are all notable, respectable, and detailed examples of existing distribution pages for anime films that have similar content to the edits that were made in the past week. Users who access
Knowledge in order to use it as an open resource for all information and knowledge for U.S. anime distribution
764:
per Erik. I chuckled at that relist notice, but ultimately it looks quite overwhelmingly like notability is indicated here. I have some passing familiarity (although nothing resembling expertise or even, honestly, much interest) with anime and found heavy/extensive coverage on Anime News
Network,
987:
I'm assuming the sources are "reliable" but you seem to be ignoring the fact that a source needs to be more than simply "reliable". You are also mis-interpreting what is required by "independent" and "significant". Since this is a company/organization, we therefore we need to analyse the sources
381:
In terms of the recent additions to the
Knowledge page, the previous Knowledge page was not at all fact-checked, correctly written, informative, or detailed. There was only one short description line that was copied directly from a 2017 press release. (That, in my opinion, felt like more of an
1055:
on the company. This "deep coverage" also cannot be "echo chamber" coverage - we need more than regurgitation of information provided by the company. You're trying to excuse the lack of coverage and saying that coverage of the movies can be used to establish the notability of the company. No.
224:
No evidence that there's anything notable about this organization. They distribute movies--great. But there is no secondary coverage that actually discusses anything about them, just mentions that they exist (and I just removed a press release saying how good they were in
Knowledge's voice).
333:
I'm not as familiar with anime-related sources, so not sure which ones can be considered reliable. I get that the recent puffed-up nature makes the topic look improperly promotional, but I think there could still be an encyclopedic version with a few solid, neutral paragraphs and a list of
566:
That is too overly specific. We want significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the topic. You can personally insist that the coverage needs so-and-so details, but the guidelines do not require that a business be
296:
as notable since they have been covered directly in industry periodicals. It looks like this article got fluffed up in the past week and can be reverted to before that as a baseline. Some articles where the company is headlined
630:, you seem to be judging notability on the basis of the current version of the article, which is not how notability works. Did you look at the five sources that Erik posted above, or search for any sources yourself?
529:
What does "why they're notable" even mean? WP:N says topics should be "worthy of notice". The above sources notice the company conducting business and write about it. You're going beyond the guidelines, it seems.
193:
830:
I've overhauled the article using the film-related reliable sources that write about the company. I redid the filmography tables and dumped a lot of the promotional language and press releases used. See
701:
are doing. With their history and their breadth even within the scope of film, it is dubious to claim that that these sources are not independent of the content. And here, these sources are literally
1028:
reference is based on an announcement that the company picked up the rights to a movie and then goes on to discuss the movie. There is no in-depth information on the company whatsoever which fails
894:
Forget about PROMO, the crucial piece that's missing are references. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of
741:
Much as I'd love to say "The result was delete. 1) Drmies is always right 2) When Drmies is wrong, refer to 1)" .... but I think we need some more input to determine whether or not to delete.
425:
Furthermore, the previous version is closer to the ideal version because there is not a lot written about the organization in the first place, though a list of films distributed would work.
1018:
is about the Pusan
International Film Festival Asian Film Market but the contents relative to this company are based entirely on an interview with its CEO Junichi Suzuki. That fails
458:
and incorporate the above-mentioned sources and a limited list of distributed films. I find that coverage does exist, but definitely not 8+ kBs' worth and not 30+ references' worth.
354:
Eleven Arts (the page I added to) is a production and distribution company with prominent anime and live-action titles. There are a number of similar pages for similar companies.
154:
259:
276:
187:
1042:
suffers the exact same problems. It says nothing about the company (other than they've "picked up" international rights to a movie and "taken over sales") and fails
325:
423:"Knowledge articles about a person, company or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts."
839:. Please review to ensure that it meets WP:PROMO. There may be coverage in Japanese-language news sources too, though I wouldn't be able to look for that.
242:
101:
86:
575:, and the above links indicate that noteworthiness with not just one-sentence mentions or partial discussion, but especially direct and headlined.
908:
original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject
706:
features of general and specialized encyclopedias, and topics will be more covered by topically-related reliable sources than general ones.
813:. I concur with the assessment made by other users on here. The article should be improved, but it should also be kept at the same time.
395:
1039:
1032:. Also, this also looks very much like is was based on a company announcement and if that was the case the reference would also fail
511:
This is just a list of the films they've distributed, we need to see why they're notable, not just what they do to stay in business.
309:
1000:(which defined "Independent Content". You mentioned three sources, lets look at the first mentioned in the article from each one:
752:
127:
122:
81:
74:
17:
910:. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. Coverage of the movies does not confer notability on this company.
414:
131:
969:
have an affiliation with the topic because they cover film, or because they benefit fiscally from reporting on this entity?
208:
175:
114:
95:
91:
304:
978:
848:
770:
730:
715:
584:
539:
480:
467:
438:
343:
601:. The criteria for establishing notability is strict, take a read of the requirement for "Independent Content" in
1083:
1015:
789:
319:
40:
958:
882:
860:
Much better, this is what we were looking for in the first place. I'm neither for nor against at this point.
399:
169:
954:
384:
My additions were to add details that were cited by multiple sources and give a better description overall.
933:
818:
690:
635:
878:
1079:
793:
766:
165:
36:
1062:
982:
916:
886:
869:
852:
822:
805:
774:
754:
719:
673:
639:
615:
588:
559:
543:
520:
501:
471:
442:
403:
347:
285:
268:
251:
234:
56:
750:
391:
1043:
1029:
993:
899:
865:
656:
606:
555:
516:
215:
201:
927:
801:
684:
355:
1025:
314:
1051:
CORPDEPTH states that what is required is "deep or significant" coverage which mean we require
454:
Please note that if the article is kept, I will restore it to the more straightforward version
1046:. All of the detail is about the movie or details around the movie, nothing about the company.
877:: The article needs improvement as a whole, but I don't think its notability is questionable.
814:
765:
which is a reliable subculture source, in addition to the reliable overculture sources given.
631:
426:
70:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1078:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1033:
1019:
997:
903:
895:
785:
660:
652:
602:
230:
118:
989:
745:
664:
663:, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails
598:
418:
961:, which should not count toward notability. That's a key difference. Are you saying that
906:. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include
181:
974:
861:
844:
711:
627:
580:
551:
535:
512:
492:
463:
434:
339:
280:
263:
246:
1057:
911:
797:
668:
610:
784:. They have been involved with licensing and releasing many notable films, like the
939:
53:
148:
696:
226:
110:
62:
359:
970:
840:
707:
576:
531:
459:
430:
335:
1053:
an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis
326:
Eleven Arts acquires 'Maquia: When The
Promised Flower Blooms' for US
952:
being actually affiliated with the cinematography products used in
949:
363:
948:
related to the entity at hand. Contrast that with something like
1074:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
310:
Eleven Arts and Edlead Linking for International Co-Productions
733:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
483:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
651:
Knowledge is not a Yellow Pages. I am unable to locate any
322:(not substantial, but a good bit to weave in with the rest)
597:
The guidelines for companies/organization are listed at
922:
836:
832:
455:
144:
140:
136:
200:
744:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
489:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1086:). No further edits should be made to this page.
796:. They also have significant coverage from ANN.
275:Note: This discussion has been included in the
258:Note: This discussion has been included in the
241:Note: This discussion has been included in the
388:of the pages doesn't seem to make much sense.
373:anime news sources weighing in would be needed.
260:list of California-related deletion discussions
277:list of Companies-related deletion discussions
609:. It is the same criteria for all companies.
214:
8:
1036:as not containing any "Independent Content".
102:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
571:to warrant its own article. It needs to be
389:
328:(covers what else they've distributed too)
320:Filmart: Can Japan Make Anime Great Again?
274:
257:
240:
996:(which defines significant coverage) and
243:list of Film-related deletion discussions
902:and (this bit is important!) containing
900:in-depth information *on the company*
382:opinion than a non-biased statement.)
7:
992:which has two particular sections -
657:in-depth information on the company
429:is also a concern with this draft.
305:Edlead, Eleven Arts partner on pics
605:and for "Significant Coverage" at
24:
682:I'm hard-pressed to believe that
421:, especially the part that says,
87:Introduction to deletion process
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
415:Knowledge:Conflict of interest
1:
1063:21:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
983:21:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
917:21:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
887:22:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
870:21:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
853:21:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
823:19:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
806:18:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
775:03:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
755:22:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
720:16:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
674:12:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
640:18:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
616:12:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
589:17:50, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
560:02:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
315:Eleven Arts goes for the gore
544:21:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
521:21:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
502:08:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
472:15:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
443:20:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
404:20:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
348:22:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
286:22:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
269:22:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
252:22:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
235:21:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
77:(AfD)? Read these primers!
1103:
790:Laughing Under the Clouds
57:18:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
1076:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
1026:This Hollywood Reporter
955:The 40-Year-Old Version
1016:This Variety reference
967:The Hollywood Reporter
934:The Hollywood Reporter
691:The Hollywood Reporter
904:"Independent Content"
794:A Silent Voice (film)
75:Articles for deletion
896:significant coverage
653:significant coverage
792:movies, as well as
661:independent content
334:distributed works.
739:Relisting comment:
356:Aniplex of America
757:
504:
500:
406:
394:comment added by
288:
271:
254:
92:Guide to deletion
82:How to contribute
1094:
1040:The Screen Daily
786:Sound! Euphonium
767:Vaticidalprophet
743:
736:
734:
573:worthy of notice
499:
497:
490:
488:
486:
484:
283:
266:
249:
219:
218:
204:
152:
134:
72:
34:
1102:
1101:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1084:deletion review
758:
729:
727:
659:and containing
505:
493:
491:
479:
477:
281:
264:
247:
161:
125:
109:
106:
69:
66:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1100:
1098:
1089:
1088:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1037:
1023:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
889:
879:Sarcataclysmal
872:
855:
825:
808:
778:
777:
742:
737:
726:
725:
724:
723:
722:
677:
676:
645:
644:
643:
642:
624:
623:
622:
621:
620:
619:
618:
592:
591:
547:
546:
524:
523:
487:
476:
475:
474:
448:
447:
446:
445:
408:
407:
385:
378:
374:
369:
368:
351:
350:
331:
330:
329:
323:
317:
312:
307:
299:
298:
290:
289:
272:
255:
222:
221:
158:
105:
104:
99:
89:
84:
67:
65:
60:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1099:
1087:
1085:
1081:
1077:
1072:
1071:
1064:
1061:
1060:
1054:
1050:
1045:
1041:
1038:
1035:
1031:
1027:
1024:
1021:
1017:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1007:
999:
995:
991:
986:
985:
984:
980:
976:
972:
968:
964:
960:
957:
956:
951:
947:
942:
941:
936:
935:
930:
929:
924:
920:
919:
918:
915:
914:
909:
905:
901:
897:
893:
890:
888:
884:
880:
876:
873:
871:
867:
863:
859:
856:
854:
850:
846:
842:
838:
834:
829:
826:
824:
820:
816:
812:
809:
807:
803:
799:
795:
791:
787:
783:
780:
779:
776:
772:
768:
763:
760:
759:
756:
753:
751:
749:
748:
740:
735:
732:
721:
717:
713:
709:
704:
699:
698:
693:
692:
687:
686:
681:
680:
679:
678:
675:
672:
671:
666:
662:
658:
654:
650:
647:
646:
641:
637:
633:
629:
625:
617:
614:
613:
608:
604:
600:
596:
595:
594:
593:
590:
586:
582:
578:
574:
570:
569:extraordinary
565:
564:
563:
562:
561:
557:
553:
549:
548:
545:
541:
537:
533:
528:
527:
526:
525:
522:
518:
514:
510:
507:
506:
503:
498:
496:
485:
482:
473:
469:
465:
461:
457:
453:
450:
449:
444:
440:
436:
432:
428:
424:
420:
416:
412:
411:
410:
409:
405:
401:
397:
396:73.123.60.146
393:
386:
383:
379:
375:
371:
370:
365:
361:
357:
353:
352:
349:
345:
341:
337:
332:
327:
324:
321:
318:
316:
313:
311:
308:
306:
303:
302:
301:
300:
295:
292:
291:
287:
284:
278:
273:
270:
267:
261:
256:
253:
250:
244:
239:
238:
237:
236:
232:
228:
217:
213:
210:
207:
203:
199:
195:
192:
189:
186:
183:
180:
177:
174:
171:
167:
164:
163:Find sources:
159:
156:
150:
146:
142:
138:
133:
129:
124:
120:
116:
112:
108:
107:
103:
100:
97:
93:
90:
88:
85:
83:
80:
79:
78:
76:
71:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1075:
1073:
1058:
1052:
1044:WP:CORPDEPTH
1030:WP:CORPDEPTH
994:WP:CORPDEPTH
966:
962:
953:
945:
940:Screen Daily
938:
932:
926:
912:
907:
891:
874:
857:
827:
815:Historyday01
810:
781:
761:
746:
738:
728:
702:
695:
689:
683:
669:
648:
632:WhatamIdoing
611:
607:WP:CORPDEPTH
572:
568:
508:
494:
478:
451:
422:
390:— Preceding
380:
293:
223:
211:
205:
197:
190:
184:
178:
172:
162:
68:
49:
47:
31:
28:
811:Strong Keep
782:Strong Keep
697:ScreenDaily
413:Please see
188:free images
111:Eleven Arts
63:Eleven Arts
921:As stated
747:Ritchie333
703:headlining
495:Sandstein
427:WP:REFSPAM
360:Funimation
1080:talk page
1034:WP:ORGIND
1020:WP:ORGIND
998:WP:ORGIND
946:topically
862:Oaktree b
628:Oaktree b
603:WP:ORGIND
552:Oaktree b
513:Oaktree b
282:Spiderone
265:Spiderone
248:Spiderone
37:talk page
1082:or in a
1059:HighKing
990:WP:NCORP
913:HighKing
828:Comment:
798:Link20XX
731:Relisted
670:HighKing
665:WP:NCORP
612:HighKing
599:WP:NCORP
481:Relisted
452:Comment:
419:WP:PROMO
417:and and
392:unsigned
155:View log
96:glossary
39:or in a
979:contrib
963:Variety
928:Variety
892:Comment
858:Comment
849:contrib
716:contrib
685:Variety
585:contrib
540:contrib
468:contrib
439:contrib
344:contrib
194:WP refs
182:scholar
128:protect
123:history
73:New to
54:Spartaz
988:using
937:, and
833:before
694:, and
649:Delete
509:Delete
227:Drmies
166:Google
132:delete
950:Kodak
923:above
898:with
837:after
655:with
364:gkids
209:JSTOR
170:books
149:views
141:watch
137:links
16:<
975:talk
971:Erik
965:and
959:here
883:talk
875:Keep
866:talk
845:talk
841:Erik
835:and
819:talk
802:talk
788:and
771:talk
762:Keep
712:talk
708:Erik
636:talk
581:talk
577:Erik
556:talk
536:talk
532:Erik
517:talk
464:talk
460:Erik
456:here
435:talk
431:Erik
400:talk
340:talk
336:Erik
297:are:
294:Keep
231:talk
202:FENS
176:news
145:logs
119:talk
115:edit
50:keep
981:)
851:)
718:)
587:)
542:)
470:)
441:)
346:)
216:TWL
153:– (
977:|
931:,
925:.
885:)
868:)
847:|
821:)
804:)
773:)
714:|
688:,
667:.
638:)
583:|
558:)
538:|
519:)
466:|
437:|
402:)
362:,
358:,
342:|
279:.
262:.
245:.
233:)
196:)
147:|
143:|
139:|
135:|
130:|
126:|
121:|
117:|
52:.
1022:.
973:(
881:(
864:(
843:(
817:(
800:(
769:(
710:(
634:(
626:@
579:(
554:(
534:(
515:(
462:(
433:(
398:(
338:(
229:(
220:)
212:·
206:·
198:·
191:·
185:·
179:·
173:·
168:(
160:(
157:)
151:)
113:(
98:)
94:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.