Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tattoos: A Scarred History

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. No evidence of independent reliable sourcing for this film. No objection to re-creation once said information is available via reliable sources TravellingCari 18:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tattoos: A Scarred History

Obvious WP:COI present. "Tattoos: A Scarred History" gets less than 50 hits on Google, and much of the sources available didn't look too reliable. Very few references outside of primary sources. CyberGhostface (talk) 02:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The imdb reference shows it as "under production". The writer is "notable" for a previous directorial effort tagged on imdb as the "tackiest love story ever made". 217.148.178.145 (talk) 03:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, the movie does have quite the lineup of Notable castings. Now, I am foraying into an area not of my expertise, but would not that make it a keeper?

Comment Nothing indicates how much involvement they have in the making of the documentary. For all we know it could be preexisting archive footage about them and their tattoos.--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The movie has made it to IMDB, which shows some notability in and of itself. Also, the article has at least one WP:RS to support notability. About the COI, I don't know. Maybe it does/doesn't. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 11:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's no 'maybe'. The main user is User:Nikjaw, who just happens to share the same name as the official site.--CyberGhostface (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, I hadn't looked into the COI part.

Delete I don't think that one source cuts it, and IMDb is definitely not a reliable source. Just being on IMDb isn't an assertation of notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 12:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IMDb not a Reliable Source? Since when? Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 13:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can add anything they want for IMDB. Someone once wrote that Saw IV would star Jessica Alba and feature Jigsaw's baby. That stayed up there for at least a week. If anything, it's worse than Wikipedia as it's a lot easier to remove false information from Wikipedia than it is for IMDB. On another note, having an IMDB entry doesn't equal notability...I can think of a lot of IMDB entries that if they were to become articles on Wikipedia they would fail an AFD.--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is usable only if the information being sourced is not contentious and has other suport through RS. It is a supportive source... not a primary. IMDB is not as bad as some editors make out, and they have been improving their own fact-checking somewhat. So yes, being only on IMDB is not proof of notability... but it can support notability shown elsewhere. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can write about their own not even existent yet etc. film on there, or add made-up content about themselves, I've seen it happen. Sticky Parkin 22:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And it gets kicked off when proven false... even faster than a Wiki Speedy. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly. I've seen vandalism and false information last as long as week, sometimes even more, after it's been added.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of it's still there years later, I've seen it, and new ones go up every day. Sticky Parkin 22:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True enough... and could almost be said for here. Pity that IMDB does not have thousands of keen eyes on the lookout for hoax as does Wiki. At least here a hoax survives only a few days before being speedied or sent to AfD. Check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Stone Beast. This totally unsourced hoax has so far survived over 10 days. Amazing. Well... each windmill will be tilted at in its own good time. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. It needs more sources beyond the listing at documentaryfilms.net... which supports the IMDB that the film is being made, but does not show notability. It needs something to show actual notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" If you visit the web site set www.nikjaw.com you will see some photos of the stars being interviewed. All celebrities listed were originally interviewed for the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikjaw (talk • contribs) 14:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one is doubting that the film is being shot, or that it will involve interviews with celebrities. The point you miss is that the only website promoting this is the production company's own website, and that the article was put up here by them to further promote their film. Wikipedia is not for advertising or SPAM. If/when the film gains a notability outside the COI sites, it will be welcomed back. As of now, it fails WP:NF and WP:V. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:50, 1 October 2008 (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.