Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pro8mm

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 per a consensus that the topic is premature for article space... but since it was requested, a copy will be userfied to User:Svigeant/workspace/Pro8mm for further work. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pro8mm

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

No coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability for companies. A majority of the sources used here are unreliable or otherwise don't discuss the company itself. There is some mention of its use in some productions, but notability is not inherited. Opencooper (talk) 00:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Opencooper (talk) 00:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Opencooper (talk) 00:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Opencooper (talk) 00:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I had orginally thought this was a notable company becuase of its vintage product the Super 8 Sound recorder. However, the lineage between the two products/companies is unclear, and in any case if there's notability it's just for that sound recorder. The film itself does not get many hits. Among Super-8 companies, there are only a few that are truly notable (Kodak, Beaulieu). Pro8Mm is essentially manufacturing accessories and services for filmmakers, so it is not surprising that it's not notable. For example, Matthews Studio Equipment in Hollywood makes the best grip stands in the world, but hey, they're not particularly notable. The same goes for this company. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 03:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:HappyValleyEditor. I couldn't find any good sources. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am the author of this article. I believe the content does meet the notability guidelines. All products listed in this article are inventions that have made major contributions in the Super8 film community. These are not simple accessories that this company happens to produce well, these are innovative film stocks invented by this company. All these inventions have been covered in well respected film magazines, several of which are cited as sources. Sources were taken from a film colleges database (Chaffey College). The Super8 sound recorder was invented by this company when it was still operating under the name Super8Sound (the company later changed it's name to Pro8mm). Please let me know if there is anything I can do/add to prove article is notable and sources are reliable. Svigeant (talk) 15:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What you can do is show the coverage in those specific magazines.

The first reference is to the pro8mm website. The second is written by Bob Doyle himself. The third is American Cinematographer, which is reliable. The fourth is a periodical titled Film & Video which I cannot find any information on. The fifth reference just talks about Super 8 film, nothing about the company. The sixth just talks about a Super 8 camera from Kodak. The seventh and eight sources talk about their Max8 format. The ninth mentions about how it is distributing the Logmar S-8. The final two sources mention how their cameras were used in the documentary It's About You.

Overall these sources do not show in depth coverage of the company itself. The only one that does that is the American Cinematographer source and that's in the context of Super8Sound. Maybe with more sources the notability for Max8 could also be considered. As I noted in the nomination, these sources discuss specific products and their use in specific media rather than the company itself. Notability is not inherited from these nor from the general Super 8 format itself. The sources do not justify a standalone article on the company and Max8 is already mentioned in Super 8 film. Opencooper (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand what you are saying. Let me look for more articles that talk specifically about the company.

Some of these sources--although do not discuss the company itself are there to show "proof" what I am writing is truthful. For example, the point of source 5 is to show Mazzy Star really used that film stock. Similarly source 6 shows that Kodak jumped on the bandwagon of color negative. The invention of Color Negative use for Super 8 film by Pro8 was the most significant advancement in the format over the past 35 years. Today almost all Super 8 filmmaking uses this invention. It has been so significant even Kodak has followed in Pro8mm footsteps by manufacturing this product. The point of this source was to show that this invention was so important that a major company like Kodak started manufacturing it. The 7 and 8th sources are from Indie Slate and Independent film which are established magazines in the film community...I hear what your saying about them specifically talking about Max 8 and not the company in general but Max 8 was an invention by this company. I believe that they are reliable sources that do belong on this page. Again the final 2 sources are just to prove I am being truthful and stating that that Max8 was used in the John Mellencamp film.

How long will I have to work on this before it is deleted? I know there are more articles about Pro8mm from American Cinematographer and other magazines out there. I just didn't use them for this article because I thought Pro8's inventions would be the most appropriate for a wiki page rather then other articles done about the company and things they have worked on that did not have significant contributions to the Super 8 film industry.Svigeant (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is all about verifiability so I can respect that. Deletion discussions stay open for a week and whether or not the article is deleted will be determined by a closing admin based on the arguments presented. Opencooper (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One last thing: Do the published magazine articles need to be incorporated into this article or is the fact that they exist enough for notability. For example, American Cinematographer has done several articles on Pro8mm but they do not necessarily go with the content of this article. If I can show you that they exist is that enough for notability or do they need to be incorporated into this wikipedia article?Svigeant (talk) 19:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean they don't "go with the content"? Wikipedia is meant to summarize all of the relevant literature on a topic; if they discuss Pro8mm, it would be worth incorporating. Purposely omitting information because it is unsavory would violate our neutrality policies. Unless you mean it is only tangentially related. Also while I said American Cinematographer is a reliable source, don't hesitate to list any other independent sources you find since multiple reliable sources are needed to establish notability. To answer your question, you just have to show that the references exist to establish notability. Opencooper (talk) 22:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the information. I was not omitting these articles because of anything unsavory but more because the topics weren't major contributions to the film industry. For example, an article (published in a well known film magazine) about Pro8's work in a specific feature film...although interesting, I did not think this information was "important enough" to warrant being in this wikipedia article. It sounds to me that it is better if I include all of this to show the notability of the company. I will try and put some work into this and hopefully it will satisfy the guidelines. I really appreciate all your help, I think I have a better understanding of the issues now. Also--I will try to do this before it is taken down but if I can't get it done this week is there any problem with me re doing and re posting it when I do have the time?Svigeant (talk) 23:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Svigeant: you may always ask that the article be placed temporarily in a user workspace as you address issues and then check back with more experienced others to see if notability criteria are met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@MichaelQSchmidt: That would be great. I had hoped to have time this evening to work on it but it doesn't seem that will happen. Is there a way to convert the article to the user space? Or do I just copy and paste the content? Please let me know Svigeant (talk) 23:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Svigeant: If/when deleted, simply ask the discussion closer (or even me) and we'll take care of your getting a copy. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:11, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable at best for the needed article improvements. SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 9 May 2016 (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.