Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KLOWNBOY CIRCUS OF GORE

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, WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 20:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KLOWNBOY CIRCUS OF GORE[edit]

KLOWNBOY CIRCUS OF GORE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable independent film. Doesn't even rate an IMDB page. MikeWazowski (talk) 07:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Klownboy is an "Unremarkable independent film" -a film that you have not seen?? you know enough about it to label it unremarkable?? That my friend is ignorance! IMDB only allows contributions if you BUY a membership -the concept of this film opposes such things. If you were familiar with Transgressive Cinema you would realize this. Do some research before you judge something that you do not understand MikeWazowski -This is an unusual film, not your run of the mill IMDB trash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klownboy (talk • contribs) 07:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While it's not relevant to this deletion discussion, you should really check your "facts" - the IMDB does not require membership payments for listings. MikeWazowski (talk) 07:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment If this is truly a notable film, then it shouldn't be too difficult to reference the article with some reliable sources. If you are unsure how to do that, then read through the pages, and if nothing else, ask for some assistance. — Ched :  ?  10:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voceditenore (talk) 10:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • SAVE SAVE SAVE! Although IMDB claims to publish pages without a paid membership, it is a well known fact within the underground film community that your work has a much better chance of being listed on the site if you pay them. We reject IMDB. It is useless -flooded with mainstream material.

"self-published, not independent of the subject" -this comment is simply incorrect. The wiki-editors make countless errors here and see no need to verify anything that they do not want to. Am I being bullied due to the subject matter of the film/contribution? This is discriminatory. Due to financial reasons, our film cannot get the coverage that a film of a large budget can afford. This is another example of financial censorship. Corruption of Wikipedia Klownboy (talk)Klownboy —Preceding undated comment added 16:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

  • Comment IMDb is not considered a reliable source either. This article won't be deleted because the film is not in IMDb. If the decision is to delete it will be because the subject fails to pass the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (films). Your arguments to keep the article would be far more effective if you can point to even one of the criteria there that it fulfils. As far as I can see it has been screened a total of two times in one city back in 2009, and that's it. It has no distributor, has never been released on DVD, has appeared in no film festivals (transgressive or otherwise), and has received no reviews apart from that one blog post. AfD discussions are not about the relative merit of the subject. They are purely about whether it fulfils Wikipedia's notability criteria. Voceditenore (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • SAVE! -fails? In what sense? What type of response is that? I think my argument merits more than just a catchphrase as a response. Klownboy (talk) 16:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC) Klownboy[reply]
Comment He's referring to the fact that it fails to pass the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (films). Please read them, so you'll have a better understanding of what this AfD process is about. Voceditenore (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for great justice in particular because it does not meet this notability criteria for films and lacks several inline reliable sources compliant to these policies for establishing notability about the article in question, but only contains several external links. In particular, it has not to provide sufficient evidence that:
  1. It has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics,
  2. It is notable in a historical context,
  3. It has received a major award for excellence in some topic in filmmaking,
  4. It was selected for preservation in a national archive, or
  5. It is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.

:| TelCoNaSpVe :| 16:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I wish to draw attention to the fact that the term/name "Klownboy" is somewhat common on the Internet. If a Google search is done using the term, the first site that appears is our youtube page. This must hold some importance as far as proof of internet popularity is concerned, and that seems to be what this discussion is about. If something -ANYTHING is popular enough, it meets the criteria for a Wikipedia article as in this fine example :*Rebecca Black Song. As time passes, the KLOWNBOY page will be refined as long as it is not deleted. This film is extremely unique, and holds artistic merit sufficient for a listing. Klownboy (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Klownboy[reply]
Klownboy, you seem to be misunderstanding again. This AfD is not about "proof of internet popularity", but exclusively about failure to meet the minimum requirements of notability for inclusion detailed in WP:NFILM. Please stick to the points of that page. Either it meets one of the points or it doesn't. If you can argue it does, please show a reliable reference. This is not the place to discuss the merits of the internet in regards to alternative film culture. That's for another place, another time. -- Alexf(talk) 17:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what way, though, does that help the article meet any of the criteria I listed above? The Rebecca Black Song is an exception because it continues to gain multiple independent reliable inline sources taken from several different news stations covering the same topic. Note that, for the purposes of this film, YouTube is not a reliable source. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 17:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Voceditenore (talk) 17:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:N as there does not appear to be significant coverage of the topic from multiple secondary sources that are considered reliable. The closest possibility is dreadcentral.com, but it is only a mention of the trailer and not an actual review like the Wikipedia article's "External links" section says. I conducted a search engine test but did not find good coverage anywhere, but I'm open to seeing what others find. I just think that for a film this recent, there should be a reasonable amount of coverage online, especially when I've seen similar works get such coverage. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    [[1]] The very nature of this film prohibits it from becoming a "mainstream" work. Because it registers very low on the pop culture barometer of cinematic success (due to an extremely low budget that results in financial censorship) it is regarded as much too unpopular for wikipedia inclusion. If this measure is applied to "invisible artists" or artists that identify themselves as outsiders, they too will be disregarded by institutions that are dominated by mainstream knowledge. The very nature of underground cinema and artwork -the elements that make it interesting, and unique, are the elements that your website discriminates against. If there was a heap of money behind this production, It would be accepted by your staff. Klownboy (talk) 17:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Klownboy[reply]
    Please realize that you have a conflict of interest here. Of course you will argue for your topic's inclusion. On Wikipedia, we follow policies and guidelines to include topics because we want to make sure that we can provide readers coverage about a topic based on information from reliable sources. A sentence like the one in "Cinematic Style" needs to be backed by a reliable source, and like I said, there is no coverage from reliable sources for this topic. This does not prevent you from having off-Wikipedia websites talking about the film, and there is a cutoff to what can be included on Wikipedia itself. There are certain cutoffs for bands (as you can imagine, there are many non-notable bands) and for schools (for which there is not much to say about many). Erik (talk | contribs) 17:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you include an important subject that does not conform to your policies and guidelines? There exists topics/personalities/institutions/movements/schools of thought/works of art/concepts, etc... that do not conform to your guidelines. Are these unique subjects judged invalid and automatically excluded from your encyclopedia based on your rigid set of rules?
    I am the most reliable source concerning this film. This is a fact. I know more about this film than anyone on the face of the earth. Unless I am deemed unreliable via substantial proof, my position as the foremost expert on Klowboy Circus of Gore remains intact. This creates a unique situation in this instance. Please verify that I am an unreliable source of information concerning this movie and I will evaporate into digital obscurity. Klownboy (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Klownboy[reply]
    You're missing the point here. Please read Wikipedia:No original research, and I mean really read it from beginning to end. It is a key content policy of Wikipedia and it's non-negotiable. Voceditenore (talk) 18:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) WP:ABOUTSELF says, "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as... the article is not based primarily on such sources." An article about the topic needs to have content mainly from secondary sources. To respond about important subjects, we editors cannot personally determine what is important or not. We rely on outside coverage to guide us. There are certainly subjects that gain importance because there are journalists or academics who at last explore them. Perhaps this topic could receive coverage someday as an example of Cinema of Transgression, but it is not being covered as an example now. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:44, 21 June 2011 (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/KLOWNBOY_CIRCUS_OF_GORE&oldid=1140138965"