Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terminator II (Bruno Mattei film)

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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terminator II (Bruno Mattei film)[edit]

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

Unnotable independent film by a barely notable director who apparently has made many such fake sequels in Italy. fails WP:NF and WP:N. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. PROD removed by article creator with no reason given. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All that I can find for significant coverage is the review that is already in the article. Joe Chill (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (disclaimer, I'm the author); Googling "shocking dark" and "mattei" together (the latter is its alternative name and less likely to generate false hits for the official T2) gives 4320 results. "Barely notable" Mattei's Zombie Creeping Flesh was significant enough to be banned as one of the infamous wave of "video nasties" in the UK ([1]), and the guy apparently replaced Lucio Fulci as director of Zombi 3. FWIW, I created this article because I have on more than one occasion heard about this "alternative" Terminator 2 and wanted to find out about it. (Note also that there *were* two references beforehand- Collectonian, the AFD proposer, removed the original IMDB ref as "unreliable". Okay; possibly fair. But there's enough at that site to indicate to me that it's not just some random nobody's ultra-obscure film). I'd be happier if there was a bit more info out there, but I feel that there's enough indication of notability and information to warrant an article on the subject. Ubcule (talk) 23:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is not a reliable source per project consensus. It is user edited and anyone can get any film listed in it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Google books brings up a number of mentions[2], and there is potential for the article to be sourced and expanded. A merge might be an option, but there are multiple possible targets,. It's also worth considering when searching that the film appears to have been released under multiple names. At any rate, I have added the rescue tag and intend to do some work on the article later. Artw (talk) 23:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the Google book hits seem to be just directory listings of films, which isn't really coverage per se. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nethertheless they give me sufficient reason to beleive the article can be sourced and expanded, at which point I'd most likely change my vote to a stronger keep. Artw (talk) 23:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing; since Collectonian complains about the "unexplained" removal of the prod- while I apologise for not including an edit summary, the template itself requests that the explanation should go on the talk page, and I was smack in the middle of doing just that when I noticed that Collectonian hadn't waited for this, nor even bothered making polite contact to ask about the prod (which I would have done)- she simply rushed it to AFD status without waiting. Not very good faith. Ubcule (talk) 00:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no call to make personal remarks against an editor or to assume bad faith because you removed the prod without actually posting anything to the talk page. First, I did not "complain", I simply noted, which I note in ALL AfDs I do that are former prods. It was not very good faith to just remove it either, considering prod is not an instant delete, but a seven day process. You could have posted whatever you had to say on the talk page first. You also say you would have made polite contact to ask about it, but clearly you yourself did not, simply removing it and saying "see talk" when the article had no talk page at all. When someone removes a prod and points to a non-existent discussion, one is inclined to go ahead with the AfD. Further, if you intended to post what you posted above, I'd have still sent it to AfD. The template also says, very first thing, "If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming or merging the page, please edit this page and do so" - you did not address the concerns, but just removed the prod as its creator. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The template stated that (a) it may be removed, and that (b) under such circumstances an explanation can go on the talk page. While I'll admit (with hindsight) that it would have been better to write the explanation first, common sense combined with an assumption that I was editing in good faith would suggest waiting a few minutes for the promised explanation. (FWIW, I note that I hadn't even left the edit summary blank as I thought I'd mistakenly done above).

Rushing it to AFD was equally unnecessary. Further, while you claim that you would have AfDed it anyway given the evidence above, this is beside the principle of good faith- you didn't know the reason at the time, because you didn't wait for it, and you didn't give me a chance to explain myself. Complaining that this (when you yourself raised the "unexplained prod" issue here) assumes bad faith on my part- when it was in fact a minor oversight at worst- is not a personal attack. Please refrain from portraying it as such. Ubcule (talk) 00:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfDing an article in the wake of a contested prod is pretty standard, and Collectorian is usually pretty blunt. TBH instead of expending effort on arguing the toss over either of those I would focus on sourcing and expanding the article, which is far more likely to have an effect on it's survival. Artw (talk) 00:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Note; I tweaked my above waffle for clarity before I noticed you'd already replied to it- hope this isn't misleading) Ubcule (talk) 00:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, it should be noted that Ubcule has posted several messages to article and user talk pages asking for assistance with this AfD, some of which could be construed as being non-neutral.[3][4][5] -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I was more interested in having interested parties improve the article and references than rallying support directly.

Perhaps you're unaware that AfD outcomes aren't merely the result of simple voting, and that bias and rallying are normally taken into account by the closing administrator anyway.

If you feel this way, it's sufficient to simply draw attention to the issue, rather than also removing them, particularly as you're arguably *not* a neutral party here.

Finally, arguing that a particular motive "could be construed" borders on personal opinion weaseled through via formal, passive language since many things "could be construed" and you chose the one that suits your argument. Ubcule (talk) 19:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fully aware of what AfD outcomes are the result of, thank you, and rallying is not an appropriate part. I did draw attention to the issue. I also removed two from article talk pages per WP:TALK as they were not discussions about improving those articles or anything even remotely related to them. And please make up your mind, either you want me to try to assume good faith with your actions, or outright declare that you were canvassing in a non-neutral fashion. Obviously its personal opinion, this whold discussion is a reflection of personal opinions - we are still human. And Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words has absolutely nothing to do with a discussion, only with articles. It seems though that either I'm doomed to be assuming bad faith for acting too quickly and being impolite, or I'm being too weasely and exposing personal opinion if I attempt to assume some good faith. Thanks for all the good faith you've shown me, however. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't intentionally rallying or canvassing. I was mainly trying to get interested contributors to improve the article (which honestly wasn't that great, but I thought was a legitimate starting point). On reflection, mentioning the AfD to get discussion going was a mistake as it could be seen in that way (and wouldn't have got a satisfactorily neutral contributorship). FWIW, if I'd been being devious I could have said "as interested parties you may wish to improve this article" and they would have seen the AfD notice anyway.

Anyhow, I'm happy to proceed on the basis that we're disagreeing in good faith (and for an admin to prune any discussion that they feel is offtopic to the issues of the AfD). Ubcule (talk) 21:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The film has enough apparent notoriety that I strongly suspect it warrants a paragraph or two in a print reliable source somewhere, if only to explain what it is not, that would constitute sufficient coverage for notability. The keep is weak because I don't actually have such a source in front of me. gnfnrf (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Wow, talk about a flip flop. I just deleted my delete vote, solely on the basis of WP:NOTFILM and the section "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." According to the Bruno Mattei main article, the director has gained a cult following for these crap-tacular movies. If the article is not retained, I would urge a merge to the Mattei bio article, per WP:PRESERVE. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, how seedy is it that the film is not only a rip-off of James Cameron, but pretends to be a rip-off of an entirely different film? It's almost awe inspiring for its utter all-round shamelessness. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reasonable presumption of the asserted notability. The film has had world-wide release under several different titles. Due to licensing problems it was never released in the United States. This will make it a little difficult to find American reviewers writing about the film, since it will be Italian reviewers wrting about an Italian film and most sources will likely be in Italian. A reasonable presumption of Italian notability would seem to indicate that per guideline the article should be kept and improved through regular editing over the due course of time. Just because it was never released HERE does not mean it is not notable elsewhere. This AfD will need input from Italian Wikiepedians and Italian cinema task force. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Writer and director are both notable enough for their own articles here. They may be obscure, and their creations niche exploitation films, but that doesn't make them non-notable. Geretta Geretta appears to have also worked with Fulci and won "Best Female Director" at MUFF for Sweetiecakes. - BalthCat (talk) 17:51, 8 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.