Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steamin' and Dreamin': The Grandmaster Cash Story (2nd nomination)

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. Cirt (talk) 12:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steamin' and Dreamin': The Grandmaster Cash Story[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Film does not meet notability standards. Appears to be an independent film that has so far only been shown at the Cork Film Festival. No reliable sources for references, other than the film festival's web site. The article includes information that is largely unsourced and likely known only to someone connected to the film. This has all the appearances of being an article that exists mainly to promote a non-notable film. Move to delete without prejudice against reinstating it if the film later gains sufficient notability. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I don’t think that’s fair. The article exists not to promote the film, but to provide information about the film-information that is certainly in demand. This is a homegrown film written, directed, performed, scored, shot, edited, (etc, etc) by four young filmmakers alone. With very very little media coverage, due to the film’s “offensive” nature, it was spread entirely by internet word of mouth, as it were. With this, and this alone, it managed to successfully sell out not one, but two showings- both of which received standing ovations. And all this, plus (rather notably) the guest appearance by Tommy Tiernan, was achieved on a virtually non-existent budget. Personally, I think this well and truly qualifies the film for notability. Certainly more so than many films on Wikipedia, which manage to avoid nominations for deletion despite meeting none of the criteria for inclusion.

In addition, all the provided information is widely available to anyone who saw the film on November 6th, or read the online information about it. There is no information that is “likely known only to someone connected to the film”. -Imagi-King (talk) 13:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being there to see a film is not a reliable source, nor is someone's blog. The only thing close to qualifying as a reliable source is the festival web site, which is not entirely objective since it is in the festival's interest to promote its films. There is no other independent coverage whatsoever. "Homegrown film," as Imagi-King puts it, is another way of saying "not notable by Wikipedia standards." "Very little media coverage" also equates to "not notable." I dispute his assertion that this information is "certainly in demand" - if it were, others would have provided it. I still maintain that Imagi-King is basically promoting the film, whether he thinks it is fair or not. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that seeing the film was a reliable source, I was simply contesting your bizarre statement that the information could only be known to those associated with the film. The blog references are there to verify the respective bloggers' (all well known Cork DJs) promotion of the film. I should inform you that I've provided an additional reference to an article about the film, since you appear to have not bothered with checking to see for new references before making claims of no independent references. If, as you purport, "homegrown film" is indeed another way of saying "not notable by Wikipedia standards", perhaps you might consider recommending Clerks for deletion too. With all due respect, you have much to learn about human nature if you think that others would have provided information about the film upon not finding it here. Not everyone is as dedicated to improving the knowledge scope of their fellow man as you and I. -Imagi-King (talk) 22:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs are not considered reliable sources for Wikipedia, period. "Clerks" would not have been considered notable at this stage, either; it gained notability later on. A mere celebrity appearance does not qualify as notable. The reference from The Kerryman does help, and it is a reliable source, but I still don't believe it's enough. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerks' notability was gained following its unprecedented success, as a low-budget independent film, at a film festival. Plus, you implied that a homegrown film is non-notable, regardless of other factors. I agree, the celebrity appearance(in actuality more than a mere role) does not establish notability, but I certainly think it adds to it. -Imagi-King (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went to see Steamin' and Dreamin' last Friday night at the Cork Film Festival. I have no connection to anyone involved in the film, but I would like to voice my opinion in support of it's Wikipedia article staying up. In the lead up to the film's premiere there was much media hype, including interviews on Red FM and Cork Campus Radio with the actors, along with much coverage on Youtube. There were also some newspaper coverage of it. This, along with the speed of ticket sales and the overall reception of the film surely justify it as 'notable.' In actuality it has caused quite a stir in Cork City and is one of the few Irish films in the Cork Film Festival this year to gain such popularity. I also fail to see how this Wikipedia article serves as promotion of the film, as the article has not been advertised anywhere with regards to promoting the film. Aside from this, Imagiking and Realkyhick seem to be trying to undermine each other more than discuss the article. -CaptainAmerica2 (talk) 00:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews on a local radio station or two have no bearing on whether it meets Wikipedia's standards for notability. Right now this appears to be nothing more than an independent film that has a highly localized following. That does not make it notable enough for the global audience of Wikipedia. If it moves on to other notable film festivals or general release, it may be notable later on. But it isn't now, and Wikipedia is not the place to try to build a following. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good thing nobody's trying to build a following here then, isn't it? -Imagi-King (talk) 02:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But it appears that you are doing just that. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I've repeatedly stated, I'm simply trying to provide in-demand information. As WP:SOAP states, an article is considered as a vehicle for advertisement when it is without third-party verification. As this article has the aforementioned verification, I really would appreciate it if you stopped accusing me of subjectivity. -Imagi-King (talk) 19:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have absolutely no proof that this information is, as you call it, "in-demand." There is no simply way to verify such a claim. Who is demanding such information? Are people knocking down the firewalls of Wikipedia saying, "We must have more information about this film!"? I highly doubt it. Moreover, this is a phrase that is often use by those trying to defend keeping an article about a non-notable subject, particularly one that can be described as "up and coming." This film mat have attracted some attention within a small geographical area around Cork, but that is not enough to be notable by Wikipedia standards. And much of the material you have added, such as the soundtrack, is not something that is independently verifiable, and likely known at this point only to someone with a connection to the film. I tried to find the soundtrack that you added on any reference that you provided. It isn't there. That only serves to reinforce my belief that you have some connection to this film and are trying to promote it.(You have yet to address what connection you have to the film.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to address what connection I have to the film because, as I have repeatedly stated, and you have repeatedly ignored, I have none. I'm a person who, having heard of the film, looked it up to find information. It wasn't there, so I added it myself. I know that information on it is in demand because I've spoken to many people, in person and online (via forums) that wish to know more about it. And yes, I'll acknowledge that a forum is probably not a suitable reference for Wikipedia, hence the lack of the addition of such evidence. But as you said yourself, there is no simple way to verify such a claim. One must examine the online hype through one's own research (much as anyone conducting research into anything would, with any ounce of sense, refer to more than just Wikipedia and its quoted references), since the fruits of such labours are considered unsuitable for inclusion in this encyclopedia- not something I'm disagreeing with. What I do disagree with, however, is your sarcastic comments. It really would be nice to keep this discussion on a coherently non-petulant level, if that's alright with you.
I know the soundtrack because I purchased a copy (you should also note that all but two of the listed tracks are available online through YouTube and MySpace). May I once more reiterate that I am not trying to advertise the film. I've written an article that cannot justifiably be considered subjective. -Imagi-King (talk) 23:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I'll take you at your word. But I still remain firm in my stance that this film does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards, even if this article were the most objective one in the world. I have an old saying: "The best-written article in the world does not make a non-notable subject notable." - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's about all either of us can say then. Neither of us have been convinced by the other's opinion. -Imagi-King (talk) 14:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why should this be deleted because it has only been shown at the Cork Film Festival. This Film Festival is recognized on an national level. To be entered it had to go through a formal screening process and a formal review. Based on this Film Critics decided it should be included as a light comedy. The film is being produced for release on DVD and numerous concerts (2 to date) have been sold out in 2 different venues. Is this not reason enough for this to be cited. The fact that youtube has these videos up and they are gaining a lot of attention adds more weight to this argument. This page is well constructed and is not offensive to anybody. A lot of effort has been put into this production and it would be a shame to see it removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 17.64.42.94 (talk) 12:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above shows how the film satisfies this policy for determining the notability of films for inclusion in Wikipedia. "Recognition on a national level" is dubious at best. Being sold out at two local venues isn't even close to being enough. Being released on DVD means little - lots of non-notable films are on DVD. Anyone can post videos on YouTube (I do so twice a week). A "well-constructed" page that is "not offensive to anybody" is absolutely irrelevant. Putting "a lot of effort" into this does nothing to establish notability - kids put a lot of effort into a fifth-grade play, but that isn't notable, either. Please take the time to learn what makes something notable for Wikipedia purposes before posting comments like this. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of non-notable films are also on Wikipedia, considering the criteria you've suggested. Why aren't you nominating them for deletion? -Imagi-King (talk) 19:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I find them, I do. And as you find them, you are encouraged to do the same. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As well as a considerable amount of independent publications, all of which have reviewed the film positively, comparing it to classics of the genre, the film is now recognised by the IMDb. I for one think it's high time the deletion nomination was removed. -Imagi-King (talk) 17:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you do. But the Wikipedia standards for notability of films specifically states that inclusion in IMDb is not sufficient proof of notability. It is now quite clear that you have not read these standards, and apparently intend to simply ignore them. I have absolutely no intention of removing this nomination for deletion. I think it's high time you took a close look at what constitutes a notable film at Wikipedia. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NF also states that "A film's entry in the The Internet Movie Database can provide valuable information, including links to reviews, articles, and media references." While I'm well aware that it does not of itself establish notability, it can go a long way, in addition to other references to demonstrate notability, given the Database's own policies of inclusion of notable films. Your pre-emptive and rude assumptions are doing little to lend weight to your side of the argument. -Imagi-King (talk) 13:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But you statement to the effect of, "Hey! It's in IMDb now, so we can just end this silly deletion thing right now, OK?" contradicts your statement above. Your understanding of what makes a film notable by Wikipedia standards is either lacking or selective. 18:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't twist my words. I said that the film has been positively reviewed and compared to classics of the genre and that the IMDb listing in addition to the aforementioned added credibility to the cause for its inclusion in this encyclopedia. -Imagi-King (talk) 20:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 02:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As far as I can determine, this film does not meet any of the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (films). It has not been widely distributed, it has not been reviewed by nationally recognized critics, it has not demonstrated historical significance through coverage more than five years after its release, it has not received any major awards, it has not been selected for preservation by any national archive, and it is not taught in any notable film schools. Therefore, Wikipedia does not need an article about it now, though it may become notable at some time in the future, at which point Wikipedia will need an article about it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Wikipedia:Notability (films). It appears that this film has been shown only at one film festival so far, in the local area where the film was made. I believe this film will need to go on general release before it could qualify as notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:21, 18 November 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.