Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Impossible Murder

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. The argument for deletion is the one based on policy: there are insufficient reliable published sources for notability ; DGG ( talk ) 19:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Impossible Murder[edit]

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

This article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:MOVIE. None of the sources meet WP:RS, and I cannot find any other sources that verify the release or distribution of this movie. The film was released directly to DVD, so it was never screened nationally. Furthermore, this is an independent film company, with no other releases. With no verification that the movie is notable, it should be deleted. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Has anyone checked for Hindi-language references? --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not me, but I have established that it's released via CreateSpace, which is Amazon's answer to lulu and AuthorHouse... (For those unfamiliar with those, this means self-published - or in this case, self-released). Peridon (talk) 15:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - A lot of things come up on google, but most don't seem reliable. A lot are videos of the trailer or a random site that just gives the synopsis. The article about the marketing tool of guessing the killer is interesting, but I don't think it's enough for notability. Comatmebro (talk) 02:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Low-budget film from a foreign country? Yes. However, is it notable to even some degree? Yes. It is listed on Amazon to be purchased, it is on IMDB, and it does seem to be a real film. LogicalCreator (talk) 12:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Almost anything published or self-published gets on Amazon - the Amazon test for me is if something is NOT on Amazon... This would have to be there, being released by Amazon's self-publishing arm. IMBd? Largely user-supplied info, and isn't a reliable independent source. Peridon (talk) 10:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any sources that appear to be reliable, and the nature of the film and its producers suggests lack of notability. I'll check back in on this to see if someone with more familiarity might have better insight. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 13:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Mid-day is a major newspaper in India, and it has an article on the movie here: http://www.mid-day.com/entertainment/2009/may/280509-Bollywood-The-Impossible-Murder-Sareesh-Sudhakaran.htm . The same was published in the newspaper on the date of the article. Imdb has stringent standards - only films that have been distributed are eligible for entry. Before commenting on the worth of Imdb please try to get an entry in first. Whether a film has performed poorly, or the nature of its distribution, or its lack of budget or publicity, does not mean it is ineligible as a factual entry in a knowledge base. As far as I know an article is only eligible for deletion if its contents are factually untrue. In this case, there are enough independent sources (four according to the entry) to justify its existence. atlastorm (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Uh, no, anyone can add basically anything to IMDB; it's generally considered unreliable except for very basic details. It certainly doesn't demonstrate notability. It is essentially the same as Wikipedia (at least as far as I know). It's not about it performing well or poorly: it's about whether it meets our notability criteria. Anyone can make a movie and distribute online (same with books, music, etc.). Wikipedia does not allow entries on creative works merely because they exist. The newspaper article talks about the film before it was released, and mentions it being notable because of the technique of release (people being able to guess in theatre about the ending of the movie). But, as far as I can tell, it was never shown in theaters. Thus, the only thing that would have made it notable never actually happened. As such, it should be deleted. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ Qwyrxian in respects to your statement above: No... not just anyone can add information to the film sections at IMDB. The "edit" tools for their film database are controlled by their staffers, not the general public. While yes, anyone can submit informtion to their film database, film information is vetted before publication. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ Atlastorm: Simply being listed in the IMDB database does not allow a presumption of notability. That's found elsewhere. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's commonly believed outside the Wikipedia community that an article only has to be true to have a place here. Not so. An article has to show significance to escape speedy deletion (in certain categories), and show notability to survive at AfD. This film hasn't been released in cinemas, but has been self-released on DVD. CreateSpace, as I said earlier, is a self-publishing entity, a part of Amazon, but still self-publishing. The requirements for coverage with self-published books are always considered to be stricter than for regularly published works - the publisher is reckoned to be part of the notability. Rightly or wrongly, that's how we work. Films are less often self-released, outside YouTube of course. I presume that a distribution arrangement was not obtained for the cinema market, and I applaud the courage of the makers of this in going it alone, and hope a regular distribution will result from it. (Can happen...) But until then, it's self-released. No-one is denying the existence of the film. Peridon (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually IMDb has very strict guidelines on submission. Anyway, regarding notability: Notability can only be measured in terms of how many references a film has. In this respect the present entry fulfills the requirements of the number of independent verifiable sources. One can question the quality of the sources, but based on what parameters? There isn't an independent body or scientific method to determine which sources are true or with merit. Consider the point of press releases - most news articles on films are planted via media agencies. Regarding self-releasing, it is a well know fact that a theatrical release can be obtained by four-walling, i.e., paying a single cinema house for each show. Even major motion pictures are self-released via studios, and this alone cannot be a criterion to judge the notability of a film. The key is to differentiate between those films that are self-released a) without accountability, and b) with accountability. Any producer who finishes a film for release and does so in an accountable manner, i.e., if there is a product to sell, where rights are established, via a reliable supply chain, with accountability to customers, and certified by a Censor body deserves the benefit of the doubt. On the other hand, those films that are self-released in an arbitrary manner, i.e., without sales (free release), with no accountability to the end-user, where rights are undefined, etc., cannot be said to be notable by its own definition. If one reads the criterion necessary to self-publish via Createspace, e.g., one realizes that a film must be of a certain quality, both in form and content. Simply put, here is a case of a film that was completed and is currently under DVD distribution, with full accountability, on par with other films using the same sales channel, with the same quality as defined by competent standards, considered worthy of release and certified by the Indian Censor Board (the certificate is on the website), and with at least four independent sources to verify its importance. What more can one ask for, really? atlastorm (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Comment I've looked at the submission guidelines for DVDs at Createspace, and they can be summed up as 'nothing pornographic', 'nothing offensive', nothing illegal', 'nothing pirated'. (I can't find a similar stipulation for books. Odd.) If you could provide a link to the quality criterion, I'd be grateful. The popcorn link says that this film is to be released April 2013 - is that a mistake? Or do they mean general cinema release, in which case there could be notability in the future - but possibly not yet. Peridon (talk) 10:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to know which of the 4 independent sources atlastorm believes meet WP:RS, because I don't see any; perhaps Mid-Day counts, but it's borderline. None of the rest of the sources seem to meet our guidelines. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can speak for Qwyrxian too when I say we'd be quite happy for it to be proven that this film is notable. But we have to make sure that things are first of all correct (yes, the film does exist - Amazon lists it), and second that the rules are upheld regarding notability. Especially in the case of self-publishing, coverage is important. The sawfnew link is a plot summary. The mid-day one is a little promotional, and unfortunately was written before things didn't happen, if you see what I mean. It's still about the best one so far. The one to Sulekha looks impressive, but they are rather better known as a marketing firm rather than film reviewers, and the resulting page looks like marketing - and, interestingly, also quotes April 2013 as a release date. Has a distribution to cinemas been secured? If it has, details would be of interest. IMDb is discounted at Wikipedia for notability. We do use it for checking some things like lists of parts taken - one case had some major roles in school productions or tryouts that went nowhere, and a long list of what were equivalent to Third Footman or Girl in Bar in the real world. Peridon (talk) 12:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just to throw in my two cents: CreateSpace isn't that choosy about who and what they publish. All that you the submitter has to do is submit the product and hold the copyright for the movie or book. That's it. If they really had high standards when it came to film and books, the amount of people that publish their work through their service would drop from the thousands to about a dozen people, and I'm saying this as someone who frequently peruses Amazon and knows people who publish heavily via CreateSpace. And by the way, links to sites that are selling the film (merchant sites) aren't usable as either a trivial or reliable source. If the article is kept, that CreateSpace link MUST go. As far as IMDb goes, they do have requirements but they're not exactly gung-ho about ensuring that all of them are met. For example, an independent film must have shown at a film festival in order to be on the site. There are a lot of people who submit their films to local film festivals that consist of an old classroom in a local community college (in other words, less a festival and more just people showing up to watch movies), then use that to get into IMDb. There's also a lot of people who claim that the film was shown, but actually wasn't. There are too many films and too little people on IMDb to quality check each and every film submitted per day. Not only that, but even if the film claims are real, the lion's share of most film information for non-big blockbuster movies are submitted by the people who created the film or by common everyday users. It's for those reasons that IMDb is not usable as a source to show notability. At the very most it can back up some details but generally the information it confirms is the type of information that doesn't need to be backed up with sources. Even if you think otherwise, Wikipedia doesn't count it as a reliable source and it's Wikipedia's rules that we have to go by. Pretty much that leaves sources 3, 4, 6, and 7 as the ones that would have to act as the reliable sources and show notability. Number 7, the Popcorn India site, that can't be used because it only lists information about the movie. It does confirm that it exists, but existing is not notability. Reliable sources are ones that talk about the movie rather than just list a one paragraph plot synopsis or list the cast. They would do things such as talk about the people who have created, starred, or produced the film, with the movie being the central focus. They usually come in the form of news articles or tv spots, for the most part. Number 6 is not usable because it is only a trailer for the movie. Movie trailers are not things that can show notability and at best could be considered a primary source. Primary sources do not and can never show notability. I'm not sure if number 4 is considered to be a reliable source as far as the site itself goes, but since the article is predominantly a plot synopsis it can't be considered a reliable source. It actually reads more like a press release than an actual article someone wrote themselves and I wouldn't be surprised to find that some or all of the article is lifted from a press release. This leaves number three as the only usable source. I'm not certain of the site's reliablity, but it looks legit and if I'm thinking of the same Bryan Durham, then he's a chief editor of the Bombay Times. However the only problem is that one source is not enough to keep an article. We need more reliable sources in order to keep an article and so far, this article doesn't have them.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here's the exact text for WP:SPS - "self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable". Then in the next paragraph it lists IMDb as an unacceptable source, which doesn't make sense but I'll get to that later. The text only mentions written documents that are self-published. As anyone knows, a feature film is a collaborative effort of several individuals, and there is probably a good reason why it was excluded from the above list. Secondly, coming back to IMDb, if one reads a post for a feature film carefully, one will realize there are clearly demarcated areas for Trivia and User Reviews/Expert Reviews, etc. The only reliable information on IMDb is the existence of the product, and the fact that it has attained notable distribution. This is clearly stated in C. Eligibility Rules here: http://www.imdb.com/updates/guide/adding_new_title. It seems strange to me that movies are ignored by WP:SPS but they are quite keen on adding IMDb to the list of unreliable sources, when in fact, IMDb criteria for movies (in their words: must be of general public interest) is much stricter than Wikipedia's standards for the average article. Regarding Createspace, please refer to this: https://www.createspace.com/Help/Rights/ContentGuidelines.jsp under the heading 'Movies' where it clearly states: 'Unreleased/prereleased movies, screeners and trailers are prohibited.' 'Movies, CDs, software, etc., that are produced and distributed for promotional use only are prohibited for sale through CreateSpace.' Technical guidelines are here: https://www.createspace.com/Products/DVD/ And everyone is ignoring the most important link, which is the censor certification certificate issued by a Government of India Authority called the Censor Board for Film Certification, India. Please refer to the guidelines of this body here: http://cbfcindia.gov.in/html/uniquepage.aspx?unique_page_id=1 where it states: 'as far as possible, the film is of aesthetic value and cinematically of a good standard.' Obviously you can't expect a source to specify exactly what kind of movie it accepts, since no definition will encompass the entire spectrum of creative inputs. The best one can hope for is to list what it cannot or should not be. The film is also available here: http://indieflix.com/film/the-impossible-murder-30530/ distributed independently to Amazon by another company. The four reliable sources, in my opinion are: Mid-day, CBFC, Sulekha and IMDb, in addition to Amazon, Indieflix, Popcorn, Cinebasti, Sawfnews and the other five or six minor sources that are probably irrelevant by themselves, but prove notability when combined together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlastorm (talk • contribs) 13:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're not listening. IMDB is not a reliable source. It may be used to source very basic movie about a movie (like its run length, release date, major actors), but it in no ay indicates notability. Amazon and other companies that are selling the movie absolutely don't establish notability, because they're simply stating the movie exists and they are selling it--anyone can create a movie, book, e-book, etc., and list it for sale on these sites. The censor of India absolutely does not establish notability--it simply says that the government didn't consider it so obscene as to ban it from being published/sold. Createspace is a self-publisher, period, and thus being released through it in no want warrants notability (though it does not preclude it). Sulekha and Popcorn merely verify existence--they do not discuss the movie in anyway (thus, not meeting the "discuss in depth" part of WP:N). Sawfnews does not meet WP:RS. Mid-day is fine, but, as I explained before it talks in depth about something that never happened (a special promotion when the movie was released). Thus, the movies only claim to notability (the only thing that was discussed about it in reliable sources) was a predicted future event that did not come to pass. As a result this movie does not meet our notability guidelines--no reliable sources have reviewed it, it was not released nationally, it was not produced by a major motion picture company, it is not some sort of famous historical film....If, sometime in the future, the movie is fully released, and garners reviews at that time, then the article can be recreated. Until that time, it is not notable. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That prohibition at CreateSpace is, to my mind, blocking the use of their facility for publicity purposes - tasters, trailers, etc - or pirated copies of films that aren't out yet. This film is stated as being released to DVD. The Board standard 'as far as possible, the film is of aesthetic value and cinematically of a good standard' merely ensures that a film is not utter wobbling hand-held crap, dripping gore or out and out porn, etc. It doesn't mean that anyone will want to watch it. I'm NOT saying this film is no good - I'm still intrigued as to the murder method. If I spoke Hindi, I'd feel tempted to get a copy just to find out. But until there is more evidence of coverage in reliable independent sources, I feel it's too soon for an article. Good luck, though. Peridon (talk) 09:15, 14 April 2012 (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.