Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Working Class Rock Star

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 delete. Keeper | 76 | what's in a name? 17:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Working Class Rock Star

[edit]
Working Class Rock Star (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Fails WP:N, WP:CRYSTAL, and partly WP:V. There are no citations and little sources given. The film isn't released until November. Also, the talk page gives light to extreme COI issues. This was also deleted before via AfD and speedy. (see Working Class Rock Star (film))

Posting as creator of this page (for the second time now). I'm still baffled that you keep saying the information here isn't verifiable. Please specify which you find untrue or unverifiable and I'll have a citation to back up every case. I don't know how the citation system works with these pages, but the information enclosed is 100% true.
And calling the fact that I'm also the director of the film a conflict of interest is rather non-sensical. With an independently produced release not a lot of promotion money ends up on the table, and you end up wearing a lot of hats. I also handle a lions share of the web promotion of the film, including Wikipedia.
To state that the article isn't notable and/or relevant is simply strange. I don't see how a North American DVD release available in most retail stores isn't notable. What exactly makes notability in your mind? Does it have to hit theaters?
So decide what you want. All the information is 100% factual, none of it is crystal ballery, and I can cite proof on every case. In reality, who better to give accurate information anyway than the person most involved in the creation and subsequent sale of the film itself?
Don't you people have anything better to do or articles that actually need editing and deleting to deal with? I'm sure someone has posted that Hitler invented cheeze whiz somewhere, deleting that makes more sense.
Not to mention, all of the information that is stated here is also available on IMDb and through NYTimes and Yahoo!, and you're meaning to tell me that Wikipedia is stricter than those companies when it comes to source checking? Do you know how hard it is and how much you need to have proof wise to get onto IMDb with a decent amount of info on the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.196.249 (talk) 23:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC) unstableground (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't (yet) have an opinion on this deletion, but I'd like to comment on a couple of your points. You said "I also handle a lions share of the web promotion of the film, including Wikipedia." Unfortunately, WP:NOTADVERTISING is pretty specific -- Wikipedia is not your personal promotion site. Moreover, WP:COI says that you should wait for others to decide that your film is notable and write about it. I can understand that might be frustrating to you, but those are the rules.
"What exactly makes notability in your mind? Does it have to hit theaters?" No, certainly not. Take a few minutes to read WP:NOTABILITY and particularly Wikipedia:Notability (films). (Please read them thoroughly before you decide what they mean). Verifiability (which would be a problem for Hitler inventing cheeze whiz) is important on wikipedia, but so is notability. My cockatiel is verifiable, because I can prove he exists, but I assure you he's not notable in the least. Especially because no third party has written about him. Is your film notable? I have no idea. It would help if you could provide some independent sources that show how the article meets the above guidelines.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(5 stories down from top), [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]
The list goes on. unstableground (talk) 00:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you read WP:COI, you'll see that yes, you are supposed to wait. If the amount of incorrect info in Wikipedia bothers you, as it bothers me, I definitely encourage you to spend some time improving articles where you do not have a conflict of interest. And after briefly looking at the sources you listed, I again urge you to read WP:NOTABILITY, especially the part about sources.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So If I add all of these sources to the page it ups my notability or makes it significant? Some are already on the page as External Links, but I guess they have to be filed correctly. How do you code sources into the page? That's the main issue, I don't know how.
On the COI issue, I'm still on the fence. I get it, I just don't fully agree. A conflict of interest would be if I used the page to state a lot of facts that are untrue, claim they are, and hold by that. It would be self promotion through Wikipedia and exaggeration....... in this case I'm not using Wiki to advertise. The Wiki link doesn't end up in any ads, it's simply there if fans and those interested in the project want to know more.
Wiki is a great platform for people to find out more about the subjects in the film, as the majority have huge uncontested Wiki articles devoted to them. The page should stand, regardless of who created it. If I had my PR person take the time to put up version #3 in a couple of months it would just be a waste of everyone's time, and rather redundant. It would be the same page, with more citations. unstableground (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion I'll suggest you save the information of this article for a later period of time. Say...when the film comes out. If it hits it big, or recieves a decent amount of coverage, then re-create the page then. But as of now, it's pure COI and crystal ballery. Undeath (talk) 00:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The creator of the page said above that "I also handle a lions share of the web promotion of the film, including Wikipedia." This condemns it to deletion as a conflict of interest and Use of Wikipedia as Advertising. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 01:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So the links I've provided above aren't an example of significant coverage? That's only a fraction of what is out there right now. Search for the title in "google", you'll get like 8 pages of results of "coverage". Crystal ballery it is not.... by far. I'm not hoping that anything will come out and anticipating it... it is coming out, I have a release date and ISBN #. I have ads going into Koch's catalogs in a couple of weeks. This is not advertising, it's a tie in for further info. I don't quite get how this is such a big contention of terms. unstableground (talk) 01:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a "tie in for further info"? That's still WP:ADVERTISING as you made the film and you are using Wikipedia to promote the film, which is also the COI. The coverage does not matter. Did say, Kevin Smith write or asked someone else to write the page for Clerks II? No. No he did not. And that's what makes this such a clear delete. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 02:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To the article's author: this is an encyclopedia, not a portal for advertisements or for you to write whatever you want. Would you walk into the office of the Encyclopædia Britannica demanding that it is your right to have your movie included in its pages?-Samuel Tan 01:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You equate Wikipedia to Encyclopedia Britannica? Wow, and you say this is "crystal ballery". No, I made this page simply because... well... look around. Any release seems to get a chance to have their own page up here, and for some reason mine has been target for deletion twice? And every word of this article can be copied and pasted from somewhere else, if you really want me to take the time. But I'm sick of this, I have better things to do than to attempt to argue this any further. I'll just wait until the film comes out and it's selling and renting everywhere, and then repost. Then someone like Undead Warrior will come along and purely out of boredom and obsession will find something... anything wrong with it and it'll get recommended for deletion again. It won't matter if it's me or some kid posting something similar, this article has been online now for months uncontested. As soon as I added the release date and further info it suddenly got pounced on. It makes little sense, but protect your self inflated sense of self and I'll move on.unstableground (talk) 01:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.196.249 (talk) [reply]
I'd like to point you to two pages: WP:AADD and WP:SPIDER. You don't seem to get that if you repost it WILL go under AfD again or will be speedy deleted, because like I said, you have produced the film and are using Wikipedia to promote the film. Wikipedia is not a tool for viral marketing, it is not you or your employees' personal webspace and you Do not own the page you create. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 02:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, clear violation of so many policies. The film lacks notability and reliable sources that have not been paid for or are not the imdb. The article has spam, crystal ball and conflict of interest issues and finally the author has ownership issues. The comments given by the other editors are correct, wait for someone else to call it notable and let them post and edit the article, correct any information on the talk page but avoid making an article about your own film as this will raise a ton of issues. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Wikipedia is not a place for viral marketing or any kind of promotion. "I understand why you would call that conflict of interest, but am I really supposed to wait around for someone to write an article?" Yes, you are; and if no one independent of you is interested enough to write one, perhaps the subject is not notable enough for an article. "On the COI issue, I'm still on the fence. I get it, I just don't fully agree." Sorry, that's your problem. JohnCD (talk) 09:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have userfied the current version of the page, if this editor is serious about contributing to Wikipedia then he can do so on other pages until November 11, then if this straight-to-DVD documentary is notable then other editors can take it back in to the mainspace. The user can edit it as much as he wants for the next five months off the mainspace without fear that it will be deleted. But I cannot see this article as it is surviving this or any other AfDs (more likely CSDs). If he is genuine then he can experiment with his own sandbox and learn how to do inline cites and find RS. However if all he wants to do is have another promo page then I suggest he looks elsewhere. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sources given fail WP:RS and movie has not been the subject of "non-trivial" coverage as required by WP:N. I have also formally warned the user with respects to WP:COI. —Latischolartalkcontributions 02:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is a trickle of short articles in the metal press based on the director's press release, but not enough right now. It's hard for an independent, DTV production to be sufficiently notable this far out from release. I am open to reconsidering later in the year, especially since my notability bar is less strict than the current WP:NF, nor do I accept the legitimacy of its promotion to a guideline. --Groggy Dice T | C 17:47, 11 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Working_Class_Rock_Star&oldid=1138717967"