Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicago Film Producers Alliance
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 without bias as the article does not establish notability as per WP:GROUP. Kralizec! (talk) 06:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chicago Film Producers Alliance[edit]
- Chicago Film Producers Alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
I first A7 CSD deleted this a while back. The article's creator complained loudly, and got the article userfied by another admin. The article quickly was returned to user space, and IMHO still does not show notability. Instead of A7ing it again, I tried placing improvement tags on it. And despite extended discussion on my talk page, and now on the article's talk page, the tags have all been removed twice without their problems being addressed. So IMHO it is time for an AFD discussion on the thing. IMHO, none of the links provided by the author serve to establish the notability of the group. The article has other problems (it's all sourced to primary sources, and reads like a press release IMHO), but the core issue is notability, which I still do not see. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- TexasAndroid is adding his "already shared" biases to this discussion. He never did a detailed review of the links and information provided. You can view his own admission of this on the Talk page of the article. There is PLENTY of notability and third party support to show that we are legit and should be approved. I ask that you ignore his obvious bias and look closely at the links yourself. It doesn't makes sense to say "come back later", when there is evidence of the legitimacy now.--ATurnerIII (talk) 03:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is more evidence that Wikipedia's reviewing process is subjective and ridiculous. On the film talk page, one reviewer wrote about notability, "appears notable enough, inclusion of actors such as Louis Gossett Jr., Daryl Hannah, and Michael Madsen indicate this is hardly someone's basement hobby project." So, notability there has been determined "just because name actors are in the film" and not because there was an article from a third party on the film.--ATurnerIII (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Per my comments below about the "Producer's Guild of America" posting, I did not see a third party article about them referenced in that posting about the organization. So, it' safe to say that they were approved on the basis of the famous names that we included in the article. Thus, similar to the example I gave about the reviewer determining notability based on "named actors", it appears PGA was accepted to Wikipedia the same way. Accordingly, I do not find credibility in the position that CFPA has to provide information that is not expected of similar organizations.--ATurnerIII (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The tags where remove because I made changes and NEITHER TexasAndriod, nor ANYONE else on this site, reviewed the changes and provided feedback. If you're gonna put tags on the article, please pay attention to the changes and provide feedback on them. Otherwise, the article is stagnant and its a waste of everyone's time.--ATurnerIII (talk) 03:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Per my comments below about the "Producer's Guild of America" posting, I did not see a third party article about them referenced in that posting about the organization. So, it' safe to say that they were approved on the basis of the famous names that we included in the article. Thus, similar to the example I gave about the reviewer determining notability based on "named actors", it appears PGA was accepted to Wikipedia the same way. Accordingly, I do not find credibility in the position that CFPA has to provide information that is not expected of similar organizations.--ATurnerIII (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is more evidence that Wikipedia's reviewing process is subjective and ridiculous. On the film talk page, one reviewer wrote about notability, "appears notable enough, inclusion of actors such as Louis Gossett Jr., Daryl Hannah, and Michael Madsen indicate this is hardly someone's basement hobby project." So, notability there has been determined "just because name actors are in the film" and not because there was an article from a third party on the film.--ATurnerIII (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The organization is obviously legitimate and has profided notable examples from several sources. There shouldn't even be a debate about this posting.--ATurnerIII (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - After a cursory Google and Gnews search, I cannot make a case for this meeting WP:ORG policy for notability. LinguistAtLarge 21:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you go through all of the links thouroughly?--ATurnerIII (talk) 03:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Although the organisation sounds genuine, the refs provided unfortunately don't meet WP:ORG. Wouldn't necessarily be a bad candidate for a future article if suitable references became available, but not until then. Eve Hall (talk) 22:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for acknowledging that we are genuine. Finally, a sensible reply. Still, it doesn't makes sense to say "come back later", when there is evidence of the legitimacy now.--ATurnerIII (talk) 03:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia's criterion is notability, not legitimacy. Uncle G (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your comment is not helpful. Tell me something I haven't already heard. I was making a different point. This is the second comment I'm reading from you today that doesn't seem to be related to the proceding points.--ATurnerIII (talk) 04:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia's criterion is notability, not legitimacy. Uncle G (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for acknowledging that we are genuine. Finally, a sensible reply. Still, it doesn't makes sense to say "come back later", when there is evidence of the legitimacy now.--ATurnerIII (talk) 03:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 23:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 23:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without prejudice. In agreement. The organization does seem to exist, the provided references and all else that can be found on google do not pass
WP:PEOPLEWP:NOTABILITY. By all means bring it back when there is more. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]- It doesn't makes sense to say "come back later", when there is evidence of the legitimacy now.--ATurnerIII (talk) 03:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I went through the links. Thouroughly. With respects, I have no doubt of the legitimacy of your organization. I also do not doubt that members of your organization have won awards. That is not the issue. We accept that it does exist and has a noble mission. What is at issue is coverage of your company per Wikipedia's guidelines and protocols to show "Notability". Meetup.com does not qualify. Your organization's own website does not qualify. The little blurb at the bottom of the Reel.com webpage does not qualify. All these do is confirm the organizations existance. They WP:Verify its existance... not its notability. And that's what Wiki is about... notability. Please read the informations at WP:N to see how Wikipedia determines notability. Please read WP:RS to see how Wikipedia gauges the reliability of offered sources. Pay close attention to WP:GNG which are the "general notability guidelines". And please read WP:ORG to see how Wikipedia determines the notability of organizations and companies. When you have press coverage that is more than a simple "Joe Smith is a member of the Chicago Film Producers Alliance"... and more than a self stated acknowledgement that you folks donated crew and equipment.... then please bring it back. The deletion review process is in no way meant to cast aspersions on the company or its works. An AfD is only a determination to see if the article about the organization currently meets the inclusion criteria. If the sources exist that meet Wiki's criteria, then by all means share them. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing more annoying to me than not thinking outside of policy. No personal insulted intended. Our group is somewhat private. So, I have not sought outside organizations to write articles about us. We mainly get press through OUR MEMBERS when they got press about their films, as is demonstrated in the references that I provided. just because we don't seek press done not mean we are not important and relevant to other (or notable, as you phrase it). There are other ways for your to determine that we are who we say we are. I can allow someone to join the group, contact our members and verify their success. WE ARE VALIDATED BY OUR MEMBERS SUCCCESS. Your definition does not apply in every situation.--ATurnerIII (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As various people have explained, we do believe that you are who you say you are, we just haven't seen proof that CFPA are important enough to deserve an article in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia editors are, upon occasion, willing to think outside policy; but you have yet to convince any of us that policy is wrong in this case. If you choose to remain a private organisation who gets publicity only through its members, that is your choice, but you have to accept that as a consequence you will lack the profile to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. Eve Hall (talk) 18:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Eve, I have written you on several other talk pages. My point has been made clearly. We operate differently. Wikipedia is supposed to support the public, of which my group is a part of. CFPA is semi private and does not seek news publicity, except when it is done through our individual members and their projects, which I have offered solid evidence of. So, your rule of notability being demonstrated only by a third party writing a direct article does not apply here. You have to get the proof you want a different way. I offered for you to join our group temporarily to find out that we are who we say we are. But, you conveniently ignored my offer because you set on the inflexible position that notability is only acceptable if someone else writes about us directly. This is becoming circular. Either Wikipedia support the public and is willing to look into this further, or they / you are not and are doing the public that you were founded to serve a disservice. The ball is in you guy's hand, many of which have no experience in film or with professional film organizations. Either step up and take a closer look at our organization to get the proof you need of our notability in a different way than you are used to, or continue to remain in denial that our organizational model is different and delete our ad. Either way, I continue to remain disgusted at this entire process. How dare you / TexasAndriod / Wikipedia ask CFPA to change the way we operate just to be listed on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is here to serve us, and not the other way around.--ATurnerIII (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is here to be an encyclopaedia. It is not a free advertisement hosting service or a yellow pages for people who want "listing"s and "ad"s. Uncle G (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your comment is not helpful. Our post in not an adverstisement. It does not ask for anything. It only describes the organization and members. This is the third comment I'm reading from you today that doesn't seem to be related to the proceding points.--ATurnerIII (talk) 04:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is here to be an encyclopaedia. It is not a free advertisement hosting service or a yellow pages for people who want "listing"s and "ad"s. Uncle G (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is more evidence that Wikipedia's reviewing process is subjective and ridiculous. On the film talk page, one reviewer wrote about notability, "appears notable enough, inclusion of actors such as Louis Gossett Jr., Daryl Hannah, and Michael Madsen indicate this is hardly someone's basement hobby project." So, notability there has been determined "just because name actors are in the film" and not because there was an article from a third party on the film.--ATurnerIII (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Eve, I have written you on several other talk pages. My point has been made clearly. We operate differently. Wikipedia is supposed to support the public, of which my group is a part of. CFPA is semi private and does not seek news publicity, except when it is done through our individual members and their projects, which I have offered solid evidence of. So, your rule of notability being demonstrated only by a third party writing a direct article does not apply here. You have to get the proof you want a different way. I offered for you to join our group temporarily to find out that we are who we say we are. But, you conveniently ignored my offer because you set on the inflexible position that notability is only acceptable if someone else writes about us directly. This is becoming circular. Either Wikipedia support the public and is willing to look into this further, or they / you are not and are doing the public that you were founded to serve a disservice. The ball is in you guy's hand, many of which have no experience in film or with professional film organizations. Either step up and take a closer look at our organization to get the proof you need of our notability in a different way than you are used to, or continue to remain in denial that our organizational model is different and delete our ad. Either way, I continue to remain disgusted at this entire process. How dare you / TexasAndriod / Wikipedia ask CFPA to change the way we operate just to be listed on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is here to serve us, and not the other way around.--ATurnerIII (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As various people have explained, we do believe that you are who you say you are, we just haven't seen proof that CFPA are important enough to deserve an article in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia editors are, upon occasion, willing to think outside policy; but you have yet to convince any of us that policy is wrong in this case. If you choose to remain a private organisation who gets publicity only through its members, that is your choice, but you have to accept that as a consequence you will lack the profile to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. Eve Hall (talk) 18:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing more annoying to me than not thinking outside of policy. No personal insulted intended. Our group is somewhat private. So, I have not sought outside organizations to write articles about us. We mainly get press through OUR MEMBERS when they got press about their films, as is demonstrated in the references that I provided. just because we don't seek press done not mean we are not important and relevant to other (or notable, as you phrase it). There are other ways for your to determine that we are who we say we are. I can allow someone to join the group, contact our members and verify their success. WE ARE VALIDATED BY OUR MEMBERS SUCCCESS. Your definition does not apply in every situation.--ATurnerIII (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I went through the links. Thouroughly. With respects, I have no doubt of the legitimacy of your organization. I also do not doubt that members of your organization have won awards. That is not the issue. We accept that it does exist and has a noble mission. What is at issue is coverage of your company per Wikipedia's guidelines and protocols to show "Notability". Meetup.com does not qualify. Your organization's own website does not qualify. The little blurb at the bottom of the Reel.com webpage does not qualify. All these do is confirm the organizations existance. They WP:Verify its existance... not its notability. And that's what Wiki is about... notability. Please read the informations at WP:N to see how Wikipedia determines notability. Please read WP:RS to see how Wikipedia gauges the reliability of offered sources. Pay close attention to WP:GNG which are the "general notability guidelines". And please read WP:ORG to see how Wikipedia determines the notability of organizations and companies. When you have press coverage that is more than a simple "Joe Smith is a member of the Chicago Film Producers Alliance"... and more than a self stated acknowledgement that you folks donated crew and equipment.... then please bring it back. The deletion review process is in no way meant to cast aspersions on the company or its works. An AfD is only a determination to see if the article about the organization currently meets the inclusion criteria. If the sources exist that meet Wiki's criteria, then by all means share them. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't makes sense to say "come back later", when there is evidence of the legitimacy now.--ATurnerIII (talk) 03:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for reasons listed above. -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 03:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Lack of notability. "Wikipedia is supposed to support the public, of which my group is a part of". I'm part of the public, I don't have an article because I'm not notable. This argument has no merit. "...your rule of notability being demonstrated only by a third party writing a direct article does not apply here". Wrong. It's a WP "rule", if you can't meet it, then you don't get an article. You can't disapply "rules" because you don't like them unless you get consensus here - and I don't think you will. "you only accept notability if someone else writes about us directly". Correct. And without this, you don't get an article. "..remain in denial that our organization model is different and delete our ad". You clearly say it's an advertisement - time to delete it then. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 22:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The word "ad" was used here to describe our post. You know this. No merit? I have already provided evidence of notability through our members. That's what happens in a semi-private organization. Are you truly incapable of understanding this or do you simply not want to accept it? I assure you, I work hard and have never looked for handouts. Wikipedias inflexible definition does not apply here. I can only guess that you must be one of those people who only follows rules and never think independently. On the other hand, only an untruthful person would draw the conclusion that there is NO merit after all of this discussion. This type of disingenious feedback is one of the negative aspects of an open website and feedback structure. There is no accountability for such intentional attempts to adversely influence the discussion. If you are going to be dishonest, please do not contribute to this discussion.--ATurnerIII (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is more evidence that Wikipedia's reviewing process is subjective and ridiculous. On the film talk page, one reviewer wrote about notability, "appears notable enough, inclusion of actors such as Louis Gossett Jr., Daryl Hannah, and Michael Madsen indicate this is hardly someone's basement hobby project." So, notability there has been determined "just because name actors are in the film" and not because there was an article from a third party on the film. This is in direct contraction to UnusualQuite's position that notability is all about a third party writing an article.--ATurnerIII (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahhh... having myself been part of the quoted discussion and the saving of the article, the proffered quote is about the film Shannon's Rainbow, and was opined at its recent AfD. Please note that THAT article DOES have coverage in Reliable Sources independent of the subject as per the guidelines. I like saving articles. I even wrote you that your article could be of benefit to Wikipedia. But chastising those sympathetic to your view does not help your case. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Schmidt, Where did I chastize you in the reply above? It was written to someone else, Unusual? Quite.--ATurnerIII (talk) 04:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it sure felt like you did after I opined a "delete but allow back"... and over at Eve Hall's page when I made the error of thinking an account with a 2-day history of editing might have been a newcomer. But that was my error if, as you wrote on her page, you've been editing wikipedia for years. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Schmidt, Where did I chastize you in the reply above? It was written to someone else, Unusual? Quite.--ATurnerIII (talk) 04:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahhh... having myself been part of the quoted discussion and the saving of the article, the proffered quote is about the film Shannon's Rainbow, and was opined at its recent AfD. Please note that THAT article DOES have coverage in Reliable Sources independent of the subject as per the guidelines. I like saving articles. I even wrote you that your article could be of benefit to Wikipedia. But chastising those sympathetic to your view does not help your case. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Addition Review Required - Author added another award that the group has recieved. I think this deserves a second round of review.--98.206.216.169 (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I just took a look. Yes, another cite was added. You now show that Sean J.S. Jourdan's film An Open Door won a 2008 CINE Golden Eagle Award of Excellence. The article also shows that Vincent Singleton's The Porter was a 1st Place Co-Winner at the 2008 Chase/HBO/Blackfilm.com Legacy of Home Ownership Contest, and that Chris L. Griffin's Partyline won Best Feature at the 2007 Detroit Motor City Film Festival. Those notable facts about these filmmaker's films are not in question. But is there any source that states that Chicago Film Producers Alliance was responsible for these wins? Wiki has a guideline that states notability is not inherited. So the fine works of these gentlemen does not become a notability for the private club of which they are members unless it is documented that the private club was a part of, or responsible for, these wins. Showing them as members is not enough. And I am not being obtuse. I am trying my best to explain the way it works here. Help us help you save this article. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And with respects to the author, I just took a go at sourcing the article. I can certainly find notability of the asserted membership, but cannot confirm the (semi private) membership. The article states it has 89 members but one has to be a member in order to view that member list on the Alliance's website so as to confirm. Per "links to be avoided: sites requiring reistration" I am stymied. However I did tag it for rescue so it might be wikified. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You can see that Vincent Singleton received help from CFPA on his film by reading the RealCHicago article that list CFPA in it AND by looking at his film, The Porter (link on Blackfilm.com in post) where he gives the alliance credit at the end of the film.--ATurnerIII (talk) 04:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And with respects to the author, I just took a go at sourcing the article. I can certainly find notability of the asserted membership, but cannot confirm the (semi private) membership. The article states it has 89 members but one has to be a member in order to view that member list on the Alliance's website so as to confirm. Per "links to be avoided: sites requiring reistration" I am stymied. However I did tag it for rescue so it might be wikified. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I just took a look. Yes, another cite was added. You now show that Sean J.S. Jourdan's film An Open Door won a 2008 CINE Golden Eagle Award of Excellence. The article also shows that Vincent Singleton's The Porter was a 1st Place Co-Winner at the 2008 Chase/HBO/Blackfilm.com Legacy of Home Ownership Contest, and that Chris L. Griffin's Partyline won Best Feature at the 2007 Detroit Motor City Film Festival. Those notable facts about these filmmaker's films are not in question. But is there any source that states that Chicago Film Producers Alliance was responsible for these wins? Wiki has a guideline that states notability is not inherited. So the fine works of these gentlemen does not become a notability for the private club of which they are members unless it is documented that the private club was a part of, or responsible for, these wins. Showing them as members is not enough. And I am not being obtuse. I am trying my best to explain the way it works here. Help us help you save this article. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I read the article and found the one sentence "Marshalling a small crew of around 20, most of them found through Columbia College and the Chicago Producer’s Alliance, Singleton pulled the film together in four weeks from scripting to completion." I scrolled to the bottom of the page, after the end of the article, where it says "BACKTALK for this article"... that point where readers may add comments... and saw where you commented "The Chicago Film Producers alliance contributed crew, actors, contracts, a vfx consultant, general guidance and the camera equipment. Fletcher Chicago is a member and connected with Vincent through the alliance. —Drew Turner, The Chicago Film Producers Alliance". I went to the Blackfilm.com Legacy Film Challenge page and watched the film by Columbia College Chicago student Vincent Singleton, The Porter, and saw at the end of the screen credits, "Special thanks to: Andrew Turner of The Producer's Alliance". I did not miss it. However, and in the best way possible... and please do not be offended and insulted... it is just not eneough. I think what you guys are trying to accomplish is terrific. I have myself worked gratis in many student films because I believe in and respect your mission. But what you are offering toward notability is just not enough. And I am sorry. You know that I went to the article and began cleanup and sourcing per Wiki guidelines... and if I didn't care, I would not have bothered... but it just too little about the organization itself and so the article is premature... and bit too soon for Wiki. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- MichaelQ, I appreciate your attention to detail but your rational just doesn't hold up. Your entire position is based soley on the translation of Wikipedia's policy to require more press coverage for "notability" when others on this very sight are defining notability differently. For example, here is evidence that Wikipedia's reviewing process is subjective and a double standard. On the film talk page, one reviewer wrote about notability, "appears notable enough, inclusion of actors such as Louis Gossett Jr., Daryl Hannah, and Michael Madsen indicate this is hardly someone's basement hobby project." So, notability there has been determined "just because name actors are in the film" and not because there was an article from a third party on the film.--ATurnerIII (talk) 07:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You have agained returned to a quote from User:Starblind from the AfD for Shannon's Rainbow... an opinion toward a well publicized film and not a semi-private club. The film has significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. The semi-private club does not. The admin who closed that debate might well have disregarded Starblind's comment, as closing admins study the weight of opinion and argument in light of wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If an argument is WP:WAX the closer will ignore it. Despite appearances sometimes, an AfD is not a vote where majority rules. AfD is a discussion of guideline and policy and how the affect the subject being discussed. Notability for Shannon's Rainbow was specifically determined because of the outside sources, because it met the criteria set by guideline, and not because of the names in it. And just so here... in this discussion about the article you wrote for your organization the Chicago Film Producers Alliance, we are trying to help with just that... dicussing notability per guideline and policy, as the names who are claimed members mean little without the press to show the connection. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Respectfully, I reject your attempt to put words in the author's mouth. The statement is clear on it's face. The contributor is defining notability as having "named actors". Based on his reasoning, CFPA should be justified based on our group's film, Holiday Baggage, alone. As I have said, Wikipedia is hypocritcal and inconsistent. You can not explain this away. Futhermore, your attempt to slight our group because we have a private membership falls flat. We are still of interest to the public because we represent independent producers, of which is a public interest to millions of Americans. The "Producers Guild of America(PGA)" is the top Hollywood organization, has been approved for listing on Wikipedia, and they also do not disclose their membership to the general public. Based on your logic, we should kick them out. I'd like to see you explain your reasoning to Steven Spielberg and Kathleen Kennedy, the President. CFPA is just as viable as PGA. The only difference is that we represent independent producers versus those in the Hollywood studio system. Just because the membership is private does not void the fact that we create a product that is of interest to the public. Finally, I DON'T SEE A REFERENCE TO A THIRD PARTY ARTICLE WRITTEN ABOUT THE PGA IN THE PGA POSTING. The requirement of reviewers on this talk page that CPFA provide a 3rd party article to prove notability, when other postings on Wikipedia are being acceptedw without it, is becoming less credible by the minute.--ATurnerIII (talk) 05:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ATurnerIII has made an excellent, policy-based case for deletion all by xyrself. Xe has stated that this organization is private and undocumented, and that the only way for a Wikpiedia reader to check facts about this organization is to join it. Thus no article here can possibly be verifiable, and would have to be constructed from primary research (which is forbidden for editors and not what we expect readers to do). That the organization has actively avoided being noted by independent reliable sources has resulting in it rendering itself not notable. Uncle G (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Uncle G's position is disingenious. He wrote that I stated that CFPA is, "is private and undocumented." That is not true. I said it was "semi private" and "is documented". The only thing private about it is that we don't make our ENTIRE membership known at any given time. That's to protect producers who do not wish to be swamped by actors and such. Other than that, much of what our members do is in the press. It's just that CFPA has not focused on taking credit for it because members credit each other in their films. I said CFPA is documented in the articles and the credits of some of the films that I supplied. I never said it wasn't documented at all. Again, we have people adding their two cents to this discussion that don't have their facts straight.--ATurnerIII (talk) 04:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The membership may be documented, but it is so only on the "members only" website. In the article, you assert certain notables are members... but your assertion cannot reasonable be confirmed. The minor mentions of CFPA in the few sources provided only confirm its existance and not its notability. We respect that you wish to "protect producers who do not wish to be swamped by actors and such", but in doing so you have tied our hands. That the members are covered in the press does not confer a notability to the organization, as their notability exists seperate and apart from the organization. Their notability does not depend on the organization, and you are trying to make a case that the organization's notability depends on them. That street does not run both ways. Though I myself do not always agree with User:Uncle G, his comment is a quite accurate evaluation of the situation. We do want to help, but your wish to not actively get press for the organization (outside the Wiki article) has tied our hands. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Per my comments above about the "Producer's Guild of America" posting, I did not see a third party article about them referenced in that posting about the organization. So, it' safe to say that they were approved on the basis of the famous names that we included in the article. Thus, similar to the example I gave about the reviewer determining notability based on "named actors", it appears PGA was accepted to Wikipedia the same way. Accordingly, I do not find credibility in the position that CFPA has to provide information that is not expected of similar organizations.--ATurnerIII (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Added another Member film to article - Catherine Rubey's "Holiday Baggage" starring Cheryl Ladd and Barry Bostwick --ATurnerIII (talk) 04:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Added another Member film to article - Junko Kajino and Ed M. Koziarski's "The First Breath of Tengan Rei" starring Erika Oda and Katori Eason--ATurnerIII (talk) 05:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I added some too after doing another search for anything new about the organization. But their individual notability is not that of the organization's. All I have been able to do is verify their membership, not the organization's notability. And Drew... I AM trying. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Per my comments above about the "Producer's Guild of America" posting, I did not see a third party article about them referenced in that posting about the organization. So, it' safe to say that they were approved on the basis of the famous names that we included in the article. Thus, similar to the example I gave about the reviewer determining notability based on "named actors", it appears PGA was accepted to Wikipedia the same way. Accordingly, I do not find credibility in the position that CFPA has to provide information that is not expected of similar organizations.--ATurnerIII (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, can you find even one article on Wikipedia about a semi-private organization that is not sourced in 3rd-party publications? Even the Producers Guild of America is written of in The Hollywood Reporter and a number of other places. With them, they have an established notability that DOES go both ways. With the CFPA it only (currently) seems to go one way. I do believe your article will one day be a fine contribution to Wiki. And I'll be cheering when it does. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Per my comments above about the "Producer's Guild of America" posting, I did not see a third party article about them referenced in that posting about the organization. So, it' safe to say that they were approved on the basis of the famous names that we included in the article. Thus, similar to the example I gave about the reviewer determining notability based on "named actors", it appears PGA was accepted to Wikipedia the same way. Accordingly, I do not find credibility in the position that CFPA has to provide information that is not expected of similar organizations.--ATurnerIII (talk) 05:38, 5 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.