Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deeper and Deeper (film)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 incubate. T. Canens (talk) 06:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deeper and Deeper (film)

[edit]
Deeper and Deeper (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Keyboard warrior killer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Erotic psychology thriller. Doesn't appear to meet WP:NFILM due to lack of eg reviews or major awards. Shown at a few minor film festivals and that's it. Note that the creator is single-purpose Keyboard warrior killer, who created a walled garden of related articles, and he, in the AfD for one of his previous articles, deceptively claimed that some of the people in the film "are recognized in Wiki as notable people" when he created the articles himself. I strongly suspect there is a COI and that he is using wiki solely to promote people and their products; check his contributions. He doesn't edit, just monitors the situation and steps in when his articles are threatened. Christopher Connor (talk) 20:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of these arguments are grounded in policy. The first guideline you quote says "is a major part of his/her career." You then say he is "best known" for some other stuff, so you yourself have completely defeated your own argument. Such a major role, it required someone possibly involved in the making of the film to add the information. Note also that KWK created the articles he then mentions, all of which are either non-notable or at very best borderline notable. He tries to give you the impression that Kotowski and his films are big, but don't be fooled: minor actors, minor film festivals, minor awards. Even then, I think WP:INHERITED covers those arguments. Final point: I think the fact that he's talking about how many notable people have starred in and how many awards other films have won in the AfD discussion for this film (which he hardly mentions) shows how non-notable it is. Christopher Connor (talk) 18:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Policy? Are you saying his arguments violate WP:V or WP:NOT? I do not see that they do. And quite actually, "guideline" actually allows plenty of circumsances where a person's involvement in a project does indeed show notability without such being a violation of WP:INHERITED... which is written for situations where someone alledges "John is the brother of notable Sam, so John is notable too". For instance, WP:CREATIVE specifically address where a creative individual can have their work notable and that notability is theirs. Seems like inherited? Nope... not per guideline. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No wikilawyering please. I'm not aware of any guideline that says if the director of the film has made other award-winning films (not that this necessarily applies in this case), then the original film is notable. I addressed the case where notability might be inherited through "major part of his/her career" and found that it did not apply. The other claims are invalid. Please address the topic at hand. Christopher Connor (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then accept my apologies, and please, no wikilawyering yourself. I do not belive it is helpful, intentional or not, to imply that guideline is policy, or to misapply a guideline, intentional or not. All that User:Keyboard warrior killer need do is show how "The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career" and his case is made. And with respects, I am striking through your misapplied tagging of him as a SPA, for his contribution history[1] shows he has made many good faith edits outside this specific topic, and such a tag made toward an editor and not his arguments is, in this instance and per WP:NPA, not helpful to this discussion and may act to inflame a situation that need not be inflamed. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I would like to say I feel very strongly that Christopher Connor may be violating two Wikipedia behavioral guidelines: 1) Assume Good Faith, and 2) Please Do Not Bite the Newcomers. I will tell you that of the first 6 articles that I have put up, Christopher Connor has nominated three of them for Deletion, so 50%. The first one was the above-mentioned film Forgiveness (at that time under Esther's Diary), which he nominated on notability grounds and was outvoted on. I tried to listen and watch and pay attention to the help that the other editors gave me in getting the article cleaned up, and Mr. Connor fought them all the way. I tried to contact Mr. Connor personally to get some help and he did not answer me and never lifted a finger to help me the entire time. The second of my articles Mr. Connor nominated for deletion was a stub about scriptwriter Bonnie Orr, who worked on the all-star independent film Corruption.gov. He nominated that one for deletion on notability grounds also, and I didn't fight it because I thought that maybe he was right. But now I have this third attempt at deleting my articles--the third from the exact same individual on the exact some notability grounds. ¶ This tag from Mr. Connor stating that I haven't done any editing outside this topic is insulting to me. For example, right about the same time I wrote all those articles about the Austin film scene, I worked on the Gary Glitter discography entries, adding infoboxes, trying to get them all connected, and setting things up so that some more articles like for example one on Gary Glitter's Gangshow (1988) could be added. I was even thinking about writing the Gangshow article, but why put in the time to do that when it has a 50% chance of being nominated for deletion? ¶ The Please Do Not Bite the Newcomers article states, "nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility." With 50% of my first six articles being shot at, and this practically libelous tag about me only editing on one topic, I absolutely feel the hostility. I am not here to vandalize Wikipedia, I am here to add to the knowledge pool. I have tried to read about how things are supposed to be done and follow existing examples, and I was hoping that as a new article writer I could get some help along the way, not get shot at like a trespasser. I'll go ahead and mention that I also wanted to add an article about the above mentioned Corruption.gov movie and do some work on the Alex Harvey discography, and was even thinking about sharing my Wynonie Harris singles discography that I compiled (16 pages long), but at this moment I really feel like it is "casting pearls before swine". Keyboard warrior killer (talk) 00:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You may wish to seek dispute reslution if you feel the nominator has picked on you and your edits in a specific violation of civility policy. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and thank you for your contributions, Keyboard Warrior killer. Dondegroovily (talk) 14:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Everyone seems to have missed the key parts of WP:NFILMS. From the General Principles section: "As with all subjects, a film should satisfy the general notability guideline." There are no reliable sources currently noted in the article and I can't find any. Furthermore, Kwk relys on part 2 of the Other evidence of notability section, and whether it passes that or not, the note above states: "Some films that don't pass the above tests may still be notable, and should be evaluated on their own merits. The article's ability to attest to a film's notability through verifiable sources is significant.". Again, there are no verifiable sources, and certainly none that suggest this film is a key part of either the actor or the director - to call it otherwise is WP:Original research. Bigger digger (talk) 22:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Keep or at the worst, incubate for a week or two. With respects, User:Bigger digger must be referring to the article's "current state" and not to actual availability of sources to verfy its content, as reliable sources do exist. IE: Austin Chronicle tells us when filming began, and World Music & Independent Film Festival tells us how the film recently received 4 nominations for excellence in fimmaking... "Best Screenplay - Feature", "Best Director", "Best Actor - Feature", and "Best Actress - Feature". The most cursory of searches[2] finds that this film, even as we discuss it here, is making the rounds of various film festivals and one might have reasonable expectations, based upon the results from WMIFF, that it will have more coverage as it hits the current festivals and not less. While yes, perhaps this article was premature when it was first created last July, its notability is now catching up with it, and tossing it at this point will mandate a recreation in a week or two anyways. As Wikipedia has the patience, and understands that articles improve over time, and as this is not a violation of WP:NOT, why toss it at this late date, when waiting a week or so will allow its continued improvement?? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Austin Chronicle is a brief mention (on a page where they also mentioned a dozen other films). Those award nominations are minor awards, so minor in fact that you needed to use Google cache to prove this as they cannot seem to even keep their own website running. The rest is a CRYSTAL violation. Christopher Connor (talk) 02:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hope the closer is not mis-led by the nominator's mis-leading statements immediately above. The article states the film began shooting at a certain time, and per policy, that statement requires verifibility in a reliable source. The verification is brief. So what? Guideline NEVER mandates that a policy-mandated verification must itself be significant coverage. And the multiple nominations for film excellence in August 2010 at the World Music & Independent Film Festival in Washington DC (not exactly a backwater town), are indicative that just a few short weeks ago the film began receiving attention for its quality... allowing editors a reasonable presumption that it may get more. And I hope the nominator does no lend credence to the nominator's bad faith assumption and statement about why I chose to use the google cache link for the festival. Had the nominator asked, I would have told him that while easily available on the festival's own website,[3] I personally chose to use the google cache link simply because I saw it high-lighted the award nominations in yellow... and I saw how this would make it easier for editors to find the 4 nominations. The WMIFF website is working just fine.[4] And the closer will also note that a guideline encouraged presumption toward notability is not crystal... but what IS a crystal violation is the nominator's bad faith presumption of the exact opposite, even after being presented with evidences that notability is growing, not diminishing. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MQS, no need to start throwing accusations of bad faith around. If the claims to notability are the listing of the start of filming in amongst other info, and nominations for awards that currently have no article at wp, then I think the nominator is currently correct. I would hope that the reasonable expectation of notability doesn't suddenly mean we can assume articles will be notable, they should be notable before the article goes live. And to address your earlier response to me, I did look for sources, that's half the point of AfD, and if I'd found sources that were suitable I would have been voting keep. Bigger digger (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination was tainted from the outset by unfounded accusations toward a good faith new contributor in an effort to negatively color this discussion. Declaring him SPA and deciding that a newcomer has no right editing fields where that newcomer feels he can contribute is in violation of WP:CIV and WP:NPA. And why would any newcomer edit something he was not interested in? And had the nominator actually checked the festival's website, rather than make an unfounded claim about my reasons for use of the google cache link, he would have found that their web site works just fine.
That aside, I opined a reasonable choice to either weak keep and improve over time and through regular editing, or to incubate for a few weeks and have the improvement be done out of mainspace. Might you not agree, that even if not kept, that incubation might serve? If my own presumption is proven accurate, the article will receive more sourcing and coverage over the next few weeks as it hits more festivals. If I am wrong in my good faith presumption, then the article will not leave incubation and will be deleted. If not kept, incubation seems to be a win-win for the project. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I should have indeed checked myself that the website was running, an error. Still, the use of a google cache on a recent film sparked suspicion. With respect, I don't think you nominate many articles for deletion or page patrol for bad creations. If you did, you might have a different point of view of these type of situations. All my nominations are in good faith and a reasonable proportion of them are subsequently found to be not notable enough for inclusion (a few of them that were kept had some involvement from you). All that said, I don't think it changes anything with regards to the notability of the article. I don't think you've specifically pointed out how it meets NFILM; you've just shown that there's a possibility that the film may get more noteworthy in the future. Christopher Connor (talk) 21:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My keep was only "weak", after all. Might you not consider that that "possibility" is enough of a presumption to send it over to Incubation for a short while? Out of mainspace. And if it never gets imroved, it gets tossed. If improved, it might then return with current issues addressed so as to serve the project. I'd almost suggest userfication, but it appears this new editor does not know of user sub-pages.[5] I did explain of such on his talk page,[6] because I think that with just a little guidence, this fellow might one day be wrting FA articles... might.. one day. And at least in incubation it could get a wider and more neutral input from seasoned editors. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And no... I do not nominate articles for deletion, as we have plenty of editors willing to do that (no offense). I think my time spent improving what may be improvable[7] is of value to the project. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with incubation, since the article may have potential to satisfy notability in future. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops Forgive me, I do now see that below you have offered that you are okay with incubation. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 03:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or possibly Incubate. There is no compelling evidence in the article, in GNews et al., or in the arguments above that this film is currently notable. There is compelling evidence that it might be notable at some point in the future, but notability is, in my view, concerned with current, actual notability, not potential, speculative notability. Wikipedia's not having a deadline is not a particularly compelling defense of the article. It's an essay, not a guideline or policy, that expresses multiple semi-conflicting views. One view supports this article (sorta), one doesn't, etc. View one says delete, view two might say keep. Either way, existing coverage is trivial, at best. Trivial coverage is insufficient to establish notability. I support incubation on the basis of the film's potential notability. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It is an option per Deletion Policy for just such cases where an article currently fails notability criteria, but which have potential for meeting them with time and through a collaborative effort. And if such do not, they get deleted anyway and no loss. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aye. Is any purpose served in my posting that I agree? I have no idea :). I like good content. This article is good content waiting for notability. If it helps any, take my !vote above and call it incubate first, delete second. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:32, 12 September 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Deeper_and_Deeper_(film)&oldid=1137777041"