Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boot Camp (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 Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boot Camp (film)[edit]

Boot Camp (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

No Sources. Also poorly written (I know that is not a reason, but it was worth to note. The Rolling Camel (talk) 11:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Much nicer now. I cleaned it up, sourced it, and even found two international reviews. Notability is a lock. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To expand, the criteria at WP:NF (along with my commentary why none is satisfied) are:
  1. The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.
    No suggestion of this. One review in a newspaper was cited. The rest fall under the excluded category of "trivial coverage, such as newspaper listings of screening times and venues, 'capsule reviews,' plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides."
  2. The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:
    • Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.
    Not applicable--less than five years as of this writing.
    • The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.
    Not applicable--less than five years as of this writing.
    • The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.
    Not applicable--less than five years as of this writing.
    • The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.
    No suggestion of this.
  3. The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.
    No suggestion of this.
  4. The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.
    No suggestion of this.
  5. The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.
    No suggestion of this.
Hope that clarifies. Bongomatic 00:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Q. Schmidt has taken me to task for referring to these criteria, as they should be irrelevant if the general notability guideline had already been demonstrably met. The only coverage that could be claimed as non-trivial and in reliable sources for the purposes of notability is a review in the JoongAng Ilbo (the so-called UK review is a user's review on a shopping site!). This does not, to me, indicate notability. Rather, it is telling that there were no reviews in national newspapers in the home market for the film--despite the director having worked on numerous award-winning or nominated productions. Wikipedia is not IMDb (IMDb does a nice job as IMDb in fact). Bongomatic 03:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not "taken you to task", as your efforts to improve wiki continue to be excellent. I was simply pointing out that the criteria you quote above are those listed as indicators of when suitable sources toward notability might be presumed to exist and are not themselves used in guidelines specifically as a presumption as to whether or not notability exists. The two issues are related certainly, but seperate issues in guideline none-the-less and for good reason. That I found an in-depth review clear around the world kinda speaks volumes, and lets me presume that more such exist. Per guidelines, that should satisfy. And yes, wikipedia is not IMDB. We have an entirely different standard... not truth, but verifiability. Thank you. And now that I have been suitably prodded (ouch), I will seek out another review or two. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please expand your reasoning especially since this would be a Snowball keep, if not for your delete vote. See Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Just_pointing_at_a_policy_or_guideline Ikip (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep WP:PRESERVE Whatever you do, endeavor to preserve information. Instead of removing, try to... no active effort was made to improve this article before deletion.
    Wikipedia:Notability states: "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself." no active effort was made to find sources before nomination.
    WP:INTROTODELETE "Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article" "poorly written" (See Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Poorly_written_article) and "no sources" is not a justifiable reason to delete. Ikip (talk) 22:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respects... don't scold. There must be thousands and thousands of reasons why an editor would not follow these simple guidelines before posting a 2-word opinion to delete something from Wikipeedia. For myself... I do a search and try to improve before opining at an AfD... but then, that's me. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closing Admin: To respond, and with respects, the section being quoted as a notability criteria is immediately preceded by the sentence "The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist". This specifically indicates that the quoted section is not about determination of notability, as the section being quoted refers ONLY to the possible availablility of sources and NOT to the notability of the film itself... making it a "source possibility criteria", not a notability criteria. I accept the good faith in which the quote is repeatedly being offered, but its use in this manner acts to confuse, not enlighten. It is like mixing sand paper and tissue paper... both useful items but not interchangable. For myself, and in using that section AS the guidline for which it was intended in my search for sources, I found that the film HAS has an International release AND has even had reviews in as far-away from each other places as South Korea and the United Kingdom. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notable subject. The article improved since nomination and is now sourced. --J.Mundo (talk) 03:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC) Change to Strong Keep movie clearly meets WP:NOTFILM, produced in Fiji (major accomplishment) and distributed by Buena Vista. Hats off to Michael Q, this is what Wikipedia is all about. --J.Mundo (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further news... and all because I felt quite motivated to show that additional sources existed. I learned that the film was initiated under an original title of Straight Edge. Under that title, I found ample reliable sources that spoke toward its notability (now added) and even discovered that as Straight Edge it was the first film ever to take part in a Fiji instituted incentive program to develop its own film production infrastructure (information now included and sourced). If I has kept looking under Boot Camp I might have become quite frustrated. But having been able to source and document the change of names, everything else just fell into place. My hat is off to Bongomatic. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There still doesn't seem to be a single citation that shows editorial content other than the JoongAng Ilbo. Note that many of two sentence summaries are identical, indicating that they were taken from promotional material--the epitome of coverage that does not suggest notability.
  • Disney: Summary of details with unsigned synopsis.
  • Reelzchannel.com: Summary of details with one-sentence unsigned synopsis.
  • cinema.theiapolis.com: Summary of details with no synopsis.
  • darkhorizons.com: Preproduction summary.
  • tcm.com: Summary of details with two-sentence unsigned synopsis.
  • Daily Variety (the one I was hoping would demonstrate notability): Preproduction summary.
  • NY Times: Summary of details with partial-sentence (but signed!!!) synopsis from All Movie Guide (a source specifically not conferring notability).
  • stack.net.au: Two sentence summary.
  • hollywood.premiere.com: Two sentence summary.
  • sportsshooter.com: Article about shooting still shots in Fiji by a member of the crew! Not independent, with almost no coverage of the film itself.
  • calgarysun.com: Reasonably long article with at most passing reference to the film itself.
I realize I'm in the minority, and sorry for killing your "speedy close" party (though I don't imagine this will even be closed with "no consensus"), but this film has among the least evidence for notability--despite some of the most strenuous searching--that I've ever seen. Bongomatic 08:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It meets one of the additional criteria (#2): "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. An article on the film should be created only if there is enough information on it that it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there." Since this film includes significant involvement of multiple notable individuals, we only need the references for verification and not to establish the notability.- Mgm|(talk) 08:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mgm, from where do you draw the conclusion that this is a "major part of . . . [the] career" of any of the notable individuals involved in the production? Bongomatic 10:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is the first film EVER to use the (then newly) instituted incentive program initiated by Fiji to develop its own film production infrastructure. That notable and WP:Verfiable fact need not have been expanded into a 3000 word article in the New York Times. It exists. Either accept that is is notable or produce sources showing it is not. Further your repeated dismissal of the required WP:Verifications comes off as quite confusing when the entirety has been woven into an article that improves wiki.
  1. The Disney source (did you notice just where it was in the article??) is used to WP:V the running time. Not to source notability.
  2. and thank goodness for JoomgAng Daily].. the only source with which you had no apparent gripe.
  3. ReelChannel is used to WP:V title, writers and director. Not to source notability.
  4. Cinema Theapolis was used to WP:V title, writers and dirctor. Not to source notability.
  5. Dark Horizons was used to WP:V the earlier title and shooting in Fiji. Not to source notability.
  6. Turner Classic Movies was used to WP:V the earlier title. Not to source notability.
  7. Daily Variety was used to WP:V the notable FACT of the film being "lured" to Fiji as part of their incentive program. The fact is itself notable and does not require a 3000 word document.
  8. New York Times summary provided them by Jason Buchanan of All Movie Guide further WP:Verifies the fact that "Straight Edge was the first film to utilize the southwest Pacific Ocean island country's five-year-old incentive program that was designed to create jobs while building a solid film production infrastructure" This WP:V does not require a 3000 word document.
If you think Fiji's incentive program is notable, then write an article on it. Certainly mentions of films that have availed of it would seem appropriate (but that being mentioned there wouldn't be a reason for a standalone article). Bongomatic 09:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. STACK was used to WP:V the "fact" that the film director asserts the film is based on a true story. Not to source notability.
  2. Hollywood Up Close was used to WP:V the fact that some of the film shot in Calgary and some in Fiji. Not to source notability.
  3. Helium is the source of the article that had been picked up by Ciao!. A nice bonifide review. (Oops... you forgot to list it above in your dismissals).
Didn't forget--this one (when I followed the link on the article page) sent me to a virus page. Anyway, now that I've been able to see the article, I wouldn't classify Helium as a reliable source. Bongomatic 09:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Sports Shooter was used to WP:V that the film was shot in Calgary and Fiji... written long after the fact by the freelance photographer hired to shoot production stills (oops... you forget to read the text?). Not to source notability.
  2. The Calgary Sun was used to further WP:V that the article was shot in Fiji as well as Calgary, as well as its earlier name. The article is ALL about the film, its shooting, and its locations. To say the film is only a "passing reference" in an article about only the film its actors and it locations... tells me you're hoping nobody actually checks your statement to see that it is in error.
The entire woven fabric of facts and verifications with sources covering the more notable aspects has made this article encyclopedic and worthy of wiki in all ways. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere did I challenge the facts verified. I've simply pointed out that with one possible exception, none of the coverage suggests notability. Bongomatic 09:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The film represents a unique accomplishment in cinema, is a milestone in the development of film art, or contributes significantly to the development of a national cinema, with such verifiable claims as "The only cel-animated feature film ever made in Thailand" (See The Adventure of Sudsakorn). That Fiji does not have a "film production infrastructure" and that this particular film was the "was the first film to utilize the southwest Pacific Ocean island country's five-year-old incentive program" gives it a WP:Verified and unique notability per guideline. I am not now required to write an article on Fiji, nor am I compelled to discover what films were second or third or fourth. I have made the assertion and per guideline have WP:Verified it. If you feel the guideline is in error, that is a topic for a different discusion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per solid arguments presented by MICHAEL Q. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:12, 27 January 2009 (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/Boot_Camp_(film)&oldid=1088299249"