Deletion of Arch Enemy Entertainment

Comment: the USA Today links are primary sources, which unfortunately does not suffice to meet 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH)

Comment: The AFD review is simpler than proposed above.  requires that the topic receive significant coverage. The article topic is the comic book production studio - a business. The USA Today articles are about the sci-fi comic series produced from the Arch Enemy Entertainment business. The USA Today articles are not about the Arch Enemy Entertainment business, so they do not count towards the business itself meeting . The comic book production studio itself has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Nobility is not inherited and a business does not inherit notability from USA Today articles written about products produced by that business. Delete. '''Additional:''' As for this whole primary source discussion, Wikipedia articles usually rely on information from reliable primary third-party sources and reliable secondary sources. The problem comes when the primary source is a primary first-party source. Where a third-party source is a source of written information about a topic that is independent of that topic, a first-party source is a source of written information about a topic that is not independent of that topic. From Wikipedia:Independent_sources#Summary, "an independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a written topic and therefore it is commonly expected to describe the topic from a disinterested perspective. An interest in a topic is vested where the source holds a financial or legal relationship with the topic."If USA Today holds a financial or legal relationship with the Arch Enemy Entertainment business or its products, then USA Today may be a primary first-party source with regard to the Arch Enemy Entertainment business and/or its products. As Tokyogirl79 points out in part above, the sources from USA Today are primary first-party sources, at least with regard to information about the sci-fi comic series because USA Today publishes the Arch Enemy Entertainment comics and has a vested interest in the success of those comics. However, the AFDed article topic is the comic book production studio - a business, and not the Arch Enemy Entertainment comics, so the primary source discussion regarding the comics topic is not so relevant to this AFD. In summary, the USA Today articles are not about the Arch Enemy Entertainment business, so they do not count towards the business itself meeting . The comic book production studio itself has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Delete
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:N||WP:N)

Comment: I'm not seeing a depth of coverage that would be sufficient enough for the subject to pass  and I have some  concerns too, not dissimilar to those expressed above. The latter is a  sort of problem but the former is not surmountable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:PROMO||WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM)

Comment: while the USA today ''can'' be used as a ''source'', because of its relationship to the subject, it can only be used for very limited content - |content that under the strictest scrutiny could not be considered promotional. But it cannot be used in evaluating whether or not | there is '''significant''' content published about the subject by '''third party''' sources. The Publishers Weekly seems to be a significant coverage source, I havent looked deeply at all the other coverage but the http://books.google.com/books?id=Jn4qwJ7LdMUC&lpg=PA303&dq=%22Arch%20Enemy%20Entertainment%22&pg=PA303#v=onepage&q=%22Arch%20Enemy%20Entertainment%22&f=false Comic Books: How the Industry Works is essentially just a listing in a directory, so that doesnt count as "significant coverage about
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:PSTS||WP:42)

Comment: I have observed that the company has received multiple mentions in non-|primary |reliable sources, including in this http://books.google.com/books?id=Jn4qwJ7LdMUC&lpg=PA303&dq=%22Arch%20Enemy%20Entertainment%22&pg=PA303#v=onepage&q=%22Arch%20Enemy%20Entertainment%22&f=false book published by Peter Lang (publishing company)|Peter Lang. That being said none of those sources give the subject of the AfD |significant coverage. As Tokyogirl1759 has pointed out, the ''USA Today'' source can be seen as a primary source, and thus isn't used on Wikipedia in determining |notability, as they have a |direct interest in increasing the notability of the subject. Therefore, after evaluating the sources, the subject appears to fail  and . Perhaps it is |too soon for the subject to have an article, and when the subject has received non-primary significant coverage in the future the article can be recreated, or the existing article can be |made into a subpage of a user who will work on the article until that time. That being said, not being notable it should not yet be in the articlespace at this time
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:PRIMARY||WP:RS||WP:SIGCOV||WP:NN||WP:COI||WP:GNG||WP:CORP||WP:TOOSOON||WP:USERFY)

Comment: per  and  and  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP||WP:GNG||WP:PROMO||WP:ADVERT)