Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sphere Media

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. RL0919 (talk) 10:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sphere Media

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed draftification. References are PR, Press releases, typical PR churnalism. WP:ADMASQ. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Companies, and Canada. AllyD (talk) 07:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In light of Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines, I advocate for the retention of the article on Sphere Media. Below are the arguments substantiated by the criteria outlined in the guidelines:

1. Significant Coverage:

Sphere Media has received significant coverage in reputable industry publications including Variety and The Hollywood Reporter, as demonstrated by the detailed mentions of its partnerships, awards, and notable productions. This coverage goes beyond trivial mentions, addressing Sphere Media directly and in detail, fulfilling the criteria of significant coverage.

2. Reliable Sources:

The sources cited in the article are recognized and reputable within the media and entertainment industry, thereby meeting the criteria of reliable sources. The editorial integrity of Variety and The Hollywood Reporter, among others, allows for a verifiable evaluation of Sphere Media's notability.

3. Independence of Sources:

The cited sources are independent of Sphere Media, not being produced by the company or individuals affiliated with it, aligning with the criteria that sources should be independent of the subject. This independence further substantiates the notability of Sphere Media as the coverage is not self-promotional or derived from press releases or other non-independent materials.

4. Secondary Sources:

The article predominantly relies on secondary sources which provide an objective evidence of notability. These sources delve into the history, achievements, and operations of Sphere Media, thereby giving a well-rounded view of the subject without necessitating original research.

5. Multiple Sources:

A variety of sources have been utilized to establish notability, not just relying on a single publication or author, in line with the guidelines that multiple sources are generally expected to establish notability.

6. Depth of Coverage:

The coverage provided in the cited sources is extensive, discussing various aspects of Sphere Media, from its historical evolution to recent notable achievements and partnerships. This depth of coverage is indicative of the subject's notability, as it reflects a substantial level of attention and detail provided by independent, reliable sources.

7. Awards and Recognition:

Sphere Media has been honored with significant awards like the Peabody Award, Canadian Screen Awards, and Banff World Media Festival awards, which are well-documented in reliable sources. These accolades further underline the notable contributions of Sphere Media to the media and entertainment industry.

8. Potential for Improvement:

Even if the current state of the article may not meet Wikipedia's stringent standards, the notable nature of Sphere Media as demonstrated by the significant coverage in reliable and independent sources indicates a solid basis for the article's retention and improvement rather than deletion. According to Deletion is not cleanup, if the topic is notable, efforts should be channeled towards cleaning up the article to meet Wikipedia's standards instead of opting for deletion.

In conclusion, the article on Sphere Media aptly satisfies the general notability guideline as stipulated by Wikipedia. The significant, reliable, and independent coverage across multiple secondary sources substantiates the notability of Sphere Media, warranting the maintenance and further improvement of this Wikipedia article. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 08:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you verify all these claims (for example the one about the Peabody award) with reference to Reliable Sources that are not Press Releases. Thank you. JMWt (talk) 09:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'Further improvement' can and should indeed follow the initial publish, but notability must be there from the outset; we do not publish articles on non-notable topics in the hope that one day something will come to be known which demonstrates notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been updated to remove the press release. The information is all cited. For instance, the Peabody Award is supported by the Peabody website. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 14:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: sources are primary and/or routine business reporting and/or passing mentions, none of which establishes notability per WP:GNG / WP:ORGCRIT. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - whilst it is clear that some severe pruning and tidying is necessary (please learn how to cite your references properly..) there seem to be sufficient RS to show notability. JMWt (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete pending an analysis of sources. This article was obviously written either by paid editors or by would-be paid editors. (Ultras, fanatical editors, don't write about companies.) The most blatant example of obviously commercial writing is The company's operations continue with a balanced approach towards project development, with around 20 active projects at any given time, half with broadcasters and half being developed internally.. It will not be sufficient to delete that sentence, because this is a textbook example of an article that needs to be blown up and started over. This will be the recommended disposition if the source analysis finds that the sources support corporate notability. If the sources do not support corporate notability, it will be changed to Delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Review of the sources has shown that they are largely press releases, interviews, and profiles, as well as coverage of a Peabody Award for Sort Of (TV series).

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	sphere-media.com	Corporate web site	No	Yes	Not applicable	No
2	www.c21media.net/screenings/spheremedia/	A profile on a web site of profiles	No	Yes	Not applicable	No
3	https://www.c21media.net/news/tvokids-orders-project-rube-from-sphere-media/	404 error	No	No	No	No
4	www.animationxpress.com	Access blocked by anti-malware	Probably no	?	No	No
5	tbivision.com	Reads like a press release	No	No	Yes	No
6	www.animationxpress.com	Same as 4. Access blocked by anti-malware	Probably no	?	No	No
7	playbackonline.ca	A press release about the company - Appears to be a web site that displays press releases	No	No	Yes	No
8	www.hollywoodreporter.com	A press release about a minority interest in the company	No	No	Yes	No
9	variety.com	An interview with a producer	No, an interview	Not really	Yes	No
10	variety.com	Passing mention of an award. The award does not appear to be a major award and does appear to be an industry vanity award	Yes	No, passing mention	Yes	No
11	playbackonline.ca	Another press release about what appears to be a vanity award	No	No	Yes	No
12	playbackonline.ca	Another press release, about the Peabody award to the film "Sort Of"	No	Not about the company, only about the film	Yes	No
13	peabodyawards.com/	Short article about the Peabody award	Yes	Not about the company, only about the film	Yes	Yes
14	ctr.utpjournals.press	404 error	No	No	No	No
15	www.tv-eh.com	Begins "From a media release", about screenwriting award	No	Not about the company, only about the film	Yes	No
16	glaad.org	A very long list of awards	Yes	No, passing mention	Yes	No
17	playbackonline.ca	404 error	No	No	No	No
18	broadcastdialogue.com	About the Banff World Film Festival	Yes	No, passing mention	Yes	No
19	variety.com	An interview with a producer - Same as 9	No, an interview	Not really	Yes	No
20	variety.com	An interview with a producer - Same as 9	No, an interview	Not really	Yes	No

The sources about Sort Of (TV series) establish the notability of the series, and we already have an article on the series. The article is about what the company says about itself, and the references are about what the company says about itself. The most positive thing that can be said about the references is that 13 of them are reliable (only 7 of them are broken), but reliability of sources is a necessary rather than a sufficient condition for notability. The independent sources are not significant coverage, and the sources that provide significant coverage are not independent sources. The long statement citing almost every known Wikipedia policy and guideline is what would be expected of a paid editor who, unlike many paid editors, actually has read Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Knowing what the policies and guidelines are is good, but it doesn't mean that either the article or the sources address corporate notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I diagree with your assessment of the sources. Here's my breakdown:

Website	Independent	Reliable	Secondary Source	Explanation
Sphere Media	No	N/A	No	Corporate website, not assessed for reliability.
C21Media	Uncertain	Uncertain	Uncertain	Profiles and industry news, unclear editorial independence.
Animation Xpress	Yes	Likely	Yes	Covers industry news and trends independently.
TBI Vision	Yes	Likely	Yes	Industry journalists provide global TV business insights.
Hollywood Reporter	Likely	Yes	Yes	Reputable industry publication with a long-standing history.
Playback Online	Yes	Likely	Yes	Owned by Brunico Media, appears independent.
Peabody Awards	Yes	Yes	No	Independent award organization.
Canadian Theatre Review	Yes	Yes	Yes	Independent publication.
TV-Eh	Likely	Likely	Likely	Run by Greg David, a seasoned TV critic with extensive experience in the television industry, including a teaching role at George Brown College.
GLAAD	Yes	Yes	No	Non-profit organization focused on LGBTQ advocacy and cultural change.
Broadcast Dialogue	Yes	Yes	Yes	Voice of Canada’s broadcast industry since 1992, providing news, analysis, and insights.
Variety	Yes	Yes	Yes	Premier source of entertainment news, providing expert analysis and commentary on the entertainment industry.

T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 19:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: My reason for initial draftification was per Robert McClenon source analysis above. Welp, here we are. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Robert's assessment of the sources, the subject fails WP:NCORP. Jumpytoo Talk 03:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Robert McClenon has done a thorough assessment of the sources. In fairness to those voting keep, I went through and reviewed the references in the assessment and agree 100%. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:14, 25 October 2023 (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.