Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fun little movies

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. Cirt (talk) 11:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fun little movies

"Mobisode" (mobile phone film) which claims to have won a prite - however the notability of the film and of the company of the same name are questionable Passportguy (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now that the article has been significantly re-written and improved and focuses more on the company than the film. Passportguy (talk) 12:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are the criteria for notability? If MTV and ITVN competed for the award in 2008, and if the award was held in Barcelona Spain, and if there is an industry centered around Mobile entertainment, is that notable? (http://www.reuters.com/article/reutersEdge/idUSTRE51I2B820090219, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7908414.stm) Thesupersfox (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)thesupersfox[reply]

Per WP:NOTE, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." If you have reliable, independent sources, it would be a good idea to add them to the article. Please feel free to ask me on my talk page if you have any more questions. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The tone of the above may have been a bit combative. Apologies, but the Mobile Entertainment Field seems to be getting shafted. Here is Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/reutersEdge/idUSTRE51I2B820090219 Here is BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7908414.stm Here is BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7908414.stm Here is CNN: http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/tech/2009/02/20/finighan.spain.intv.spacey.cnn Here is LA Times on FLM: http://articles.latimes.com/2005/may/07/entertainment/et-mobiletv7?pg=3 Forbes is here: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/clips/2005/05/24/ComingSoonFORBES.pdf Those are just a few of the names that think FUn Little Movies is notable. Thesupersfox (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)thesupersfox—Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesupersfox (talk • contribs) 20:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good start, but it should be noted that not all of those articles mention Fun Little Movies. I do agree that there should probably be some sort of Wikipedia entry covering mobile entertainment and MoFilm, though. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Note that I moved the page to Fun Little Movies, because the company uses capital letters on all words. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for all your help. Yes, not all of those mention fun little movies, some refer to the Mofilm award, and its notability, since that had also been contestedThesupersfox (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)thesupersfox.Thesupersfox (talk) 23:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)thesupersfox[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep it seems we do have a new media format to figure out how to work with, & so it is possible that the award is significant. We need a further discussion it it. Am I correct it was the first time it has been awarded? that tends to make things difficult to evaluate.DGG (talk) 18:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Generally, a prize needs to at least bear mention in some sort of reliable source when it's awarded. A subject like mobisodes is going to be covered heavily on the internet, but I found little to nothing in Google News or elsewhere. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments by User:Thesupersfox. "Fun Little Movies" as a company is indeed getting the coverage required by WP:GNG. See Google News "Fun Little Movies". And to AMIB, and with respects, my own search found the term "mobisode" indeed finding greater and greater use in contemporary media. See Google News "mobisode". This little stub has a great future if allowed to grow based upon the many available sources. WP:CLEANUP anyone? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can Google search "student film" and get many millions of entries, but it doesn't mean a particular student film is notable. The point about mobisodes is that it's not the sort of subject that is going to see exclusive print coverage, so a lack of online coverage can be safely taken as a lack of any coverage, barring specific evidence otherwise. As for the linked sites, this and this and this make no mention of Fun Little Movies, and this makes only brief mention. It's odd that you cite sources that don't even mention this series as reliable sources; are you sure you read them? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With respects, this article is not about student films. It is about a specific company. And no, I am not required by guideline to now list every source found in that search and explain how it shows notability for the subject of the article. Sad that the current article needs work, but since Wikipedia does not expect to be perfect, that's a reason to fix an article through cleanup, not a reason for deletion. And again, the article is not about "the series", its about "the company". Thank you, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nor is it about mobisodes; it's about a specific mobisode series, so broadly drawn Google searches that catch no relevant pages don't help. Where are the sources that comment on this subject? It is on you to justify claims that the subject is notable and verifiable, not vice versa. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, it is not about "mobisodes". I was responding to your initial statement "A subject like mobisodes is going to be covered heavily on the internet, but I found little to nothing in Google News or elsewhere". I found it in g-news when you said you found litle. But arguing that point is not helpful to a discussion about a company, since the article is specifically not about a mobisodes series.... the article is about a comapny.

The entire content of the current stub is "Fun Little Movies is a short film production and distribution company based in Burbank, California. Their recent production Turbo Dates won 2009 Mofilm Grand Prize." This makes it an article about a company, with an assertion of a product wining an award. Their product line itself may be part of a later subsection when the article is kept and expanded.

The "burden" of the company meeting the notability guideline is seen by any who look at the readily available G-news sources ABOUT the company. Burden is an instruction for article creation and maintainace, and not a demand for editors to prove that the sources available actually exist.

And of course WP:BURDEN is set in place to encourage article improvement, not deletion, by its stating "If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider tagging a sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, a section with {{unreferencedsection}}, or the article with {{refimprove}} or {{unreferenced}}. Alternatively, you may leave a note on the talk page requesting a source, or you may move the material to the talk page.". Thank you. And now back to an improvable stub article about a company... Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You keep linking that Google search. I was wondering when you'd point out something in it that wasn't a press release. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Not my job to do it for you. I'm busy actually improving the article instead of trying to argue why it should go. Thank you though for your input. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep this article, I'm sure there are sources. Somewhere. All those editors who said they looked at the broadly drawn Google searches I posted and found nothing of use? They missed something. Obviously." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my repeated offering of the Google News search, I have opened the door and hoped that someone might actually peek to see that there are indeed flowers among the weeds. I am not however going to pick them and place them in your lap. The flowers I am picking, I am putting to use elsewhere. Thank you for your constructive efforts to build an encyclopedia. For myself anyway, its far easier me me to fix the pipe than complain about having wet feet. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I'll be over here cleaning up advertising, and contenting myself that the most efficient plumbing system uses the smallest amount of pipe possible. (But in the meantime it's cool if I describe your claim that sources exist as unsupported by evidence, ya?) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand that philosophy of some that the paperless Wikipedia is too big... and perhaps all of Wikipedia will one day be relegated to a one line redirect. "Wikipedia: See Encyclopedia Britanica". In the meanwhile though, I will content myself to fixing the pipes that are repairable, rather than tearing them out so as to have as few as possible. And as for my "claim", anyone who actually looks at the G-news sources will see the claim is not unsupported nor unsupportable. Enjoyable discourse. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We can talk about philosophy, because I don't quite think you fully understand where I'm coming from in a larger scheme (because of my omissions more than anything else) but in the meantime there's this advertise-y article lacking any sort of proper establishment of notability, and while I realize you're opposed to that, we do delete non-notable articles here at AFD. Did you have any guidance for what to look for beyond that Google search? I looked for this series with the award name and got only press releases and faff, dug through that search and found lots of press releases and blogs referencing those press releases and some unrelated junk, and did some other searching and got bupkiss. I've put in my good-faith effort, and come up with nawt. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any plumber will tell you that the smaller the pipe, the more restricted the flow and the eassier it is to get stoppages in a system intended for high volume. That anolgy applied to Wikipedia can translate to a lessened flow of information and more disruption as editors bicker over how their plan for the "pipes" and the "flow" is better than somone else's.

If one looks out a dooor expecting to find weeds, that's all one will sometimes allow oneself to see. If one steps out and walks the garden looking for the flowers, one can then ignore the weeds.

You searched for a series and an award. I searched for the "flowers" of a company (the article topic) and its founder. Digging through several hundred articles going back to 2004, I gathered a rather nice bouquet.

We are different editors and have different search practices. And so while involved in this discussion with you here, I think my own time was also spent in a rather productive manner. Thank you for sharing your philosophy. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outdent. I didn't have any problem finding sourcing in that search - "Still in its infancy, cell phone cinema preps for a close-up." Chicago Tribune (via Knight-Ridder/Tribune News Service) and noted that it's already been added to the article along with many other sources. MichaelQSchmidt, IMHO, is developing a stellar track record of overhauling articles and should be commended whereas this thread seems rather snarky against them. Perhaps the point that energy would be better used improving articles is good advice and they seem to be setting an example of how to do so. -- Banjeboi 22:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article now has references to plenty of notable media sources, meeting all requirements for its existence. Dream Focus 11:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of sources. Granite thump (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, excellent work MichaelQSchmidt, sourcing and notability piled on and done so with rather finessed writing. -- Banjeboi 22:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am gratified that the nom withdrew his nomination. It feels good to help actually build an encyclopedia.. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball Keep per excellent work of MichaelQSchmidt. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.