Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Means TV

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:00, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Means TV

[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)

Not notable enough. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete company does not currently have the kind of coverage which suggests notability under NCORP. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:09, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Means TV (formerly Means of Production)is a highly notable media organization whose film-making helped propel AOC to prominence. Received significant coverage at a national level, including CNN (here), Filmmaker Magazine (here), Detroit Free Press (here), The New York Times (here), The Washington Post (here), Huffington Post (here), MSNBC (video embedded here), Ad week (here), and Los Angeles Times (here). Cbl62 (talk) 01:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:40, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. References are either mentions-in-passing, or rely on announcements/quotations/interviews with connected sources, therefore fails WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing: Did you review the sources collected above? Just not sure how these sources, e.g. this, could be considered to not constitute significant coverage. Cbl62 (talk) 11:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cbl62 I reviewed all the sources including the ones above. Not only do sources have to be in-depth/significant but they also must be independent in terms of author *and* content. The Filmmaker source you linked to for instance relies on an interview with the founders and is therefore not independent and fails WP:ORGIND. From the guidelines: "in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject." There is nothing in that article that is not attributable to words from the founders' mouths. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Filmmaker (magazine) is the leading publication in the world of independent film-making. It is clearly a reliable and independent source. The fact that the story includes (but is not limited to) quotes does not diminish its independence. And that is just one example of the national coverage given to this organization. Cbl62 (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt its a great independent magazine but the content must also be independent. You say that the story include (but is not limited to) quotes and that this doesn't diminish its independence. Are we reading the same article? That vast majority of the story is made up of quotes from either Hayes or Burton. Can you point to any original/independent opinion/analysis/investigation/fact checking (about the company) that is clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject within that article? I'm left with statements/comments on their ad with nothing about the company. Statements like "Means of Production’s ideologically chiseled, disarmingly human ad for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez dropped a month later, and its nearly one million viral views have helped launch the career of one of the left’s rising stars" and most of the second last paragraph which equally discusses their second ad. Nothing about the company. This simply doesn't meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I looked at what appeared to be the WP:THREE best sources listed above; LA Times, NY Times, and Wash Post. All where just passing mentions in articles fundamentally about the use of viral videos in political campaigns, not the company that made one of them. Fails WP:NCORP. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:45, 14 June 2019 (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.