Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Resurrection of Beauty

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Resurrection of Beauty[edit]

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

A film adaptation of Miremont's own photo book, I cannot find a significant coverage in multiple WP:RS indicating that this in fact a work that satisfies WP:NOTFILM. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find anywhere where it has been claimed that this film is an adaptation of photo book by Miremont. Shawn in Montreal refers to a "photo book" at the filmmaker's page (which he has also nominated for deletion) as well. Perhaps Shawn is referring to the title of a photography exhibit or an essay Miremont wrote on Aesthetics ? Either way, it is not probable that a filmmaker would adapt a film from an art exhibit or essay on Aesthetics. So please give a reference to this "book" if you are going to use it to justify content deletions as you do on the filmmaker page.

This film's page was recently created (by me). However it should also be understood that this is an "experimental film" and not a Hollywood blockbuster. For an exhibitor to fly the filmmaker across the ocean to screen an experimental film for such a large audience is, in itself, notable, given the genre. These days, experimental films are usually given small audiences of 10-20 people and with very little publicity at colleges (which is where I saw this film myself). Nynewart (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2014

Your statements at AfD seem to have a pattern of disavowing things you've written, or edits you've made. In this case, it is your statement that the film and some written "manifesto" version of The Resurrection of Beauty "features the same elements of saturated color, stunning locations and models." Whether one calls this manifesto a printed work, or the film an adaptation, is of no consequence to the central question: is this subject notable. So I don't care to argue the terminology with you. The onus is on you -- or other editors who feel the page is worth keeping -- to produce some bona fide WP:RS. I think we all get that this is not a Hollywood blockbuster. But if you take a look at, say, Category:American avant-garde and experimental films, you'll see that notable experimental films are discussed in secondary sources. And no, flying "across the ocean," remarkable a feat as that is, to screen a film is not a criterion I find at WP:NOTFILM. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but . . . If the Mark Miremont article is kept (which seems rather uncertain at the moment) this should be merged and redirected there. Otherwise I imagine it would have to be deleted. I haven't found any indication that this piece has any notability separate from that of its creator. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is below was written while at the same time the MERGE option came up. Which is a very interesting idea. I think I will work on that next week if you don't believe it would be a waste of time. I think Arxiloxos is right about the two being better off together at this point. ++++++

Below is what was written in response to Shawn. I will post it here as I think it clears up a misunderstanding he has been using on both pages... :

Shawn, I am merely trying to be polite and non-confrontational. My being polite does not mean I am disavowing anything, however. I don't appreciate your characterizations.

So let's be very clear now: You have been referring (on this page and on the filmmaker's) to a "photo book". A "photo book" means, to those people interested in photography, a book of photographs.

I have never, anywhere referenced a "photo book" or any kind of "book", nor have I said that this film is based on one. Nor did Mamie van Doren write the quote I referenced because she was in a photo book by the filmmaker, as you wrote on the filmmakers page. These are misconceptions "you" have written and then as justification for content deletion.

I have used published sources to note that the filmmaker screened this film in conjunction with a photography exhibit in a separate art gallery and with the release of an written essay on Aesthetics/a manifesto. There can be several things with the same name, but they can refer to very different things. Just as there are several Shawns in the world, there is only one you. Here, you took different things with the same name- "a film", "an art exhibit" and an "essay/manifesto" and confused them and gave birth to a "photo book". This is understandable when different things have the same name. However, you then took an additional step and claimed this film is based on a book (it isn't) and that a famous model was "logrolling" becasue she is IN this non-existent book (you did this on the filmmaker's page). Intended or not, when when deleting content and knocking notability, it is important to understand the subject.

Regarding the list of experimental filmmakers you suggested, did you look at them yourself? I only looked at the first name on the list, Kenneth Anger, whose work I also know. If you look at his filmography: Kenneth_Anger#Filmography you will see that not single one of his many films in the last 14 years has reference to justify its existence on wiki. In fact, that page has so many unsubstantiated assertions that it is almost unreadable.

The thing to see here is, in the experimental genre of film, it takes time for criticism to be written becasue these films rarely see the light of a cinema - unlike mainstream, or even art films. So for you to ask that I compare this brand new film that was just released to seminal works that have been around and written about, some since the 1930s, is just disingenuous.

I get your point. I do. And if this were a commercial film, I would agree. But as a work of art, which is what experimental films often aim to be, references from art galleries and from large exhibitions venues that host them ARE of merit.

Nowhere did I write "this film is awesome!" "This film is this or that". Everything came from a screening venue's notice, an established art gallery announcement and IMDB.

This page, and this film, are new. Give them some time. There are enough references here, typically used for this genre of film, for the page to stand as is. Hopefully others will improve upon it as well, when they discover it here. Nynewart (talk) 6:23 EST, 20 March 2014 — Preceding undated comment added 22:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're resorting to an argument that we like to call here, WP:OTHERCRAP. I don't know know if all of Kenneth Anger's film articles are fully sourced, and I suppose you're free to nominate any that you find faulty, keeping in mind WP:POINT. But Wikipedia:NOTFILM#Other_evidence_of_notability does allow for cases with film articles where a notable person has been significantly involved, even if the article fails other tests for notability. Mark Miremont‎ is not such an individual, not yet, anyway -- much as the article used peacock language, unreliable and primary sources, and some frankly absurd claims (again, the "philosopher" thing) to give the impression that he is. Or so is my contention. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)But, Nynewart, the difference is that Kenneth Anger is widely known and written about: for example, more than 2,000 references at Google Scholar [1]. Mark Miremont, I regret to say, has . . . zero. [2]. That's not the final word but it's not promising. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I get what you are saying and your points are helpful. Thank you. I forget how dealing with strangers online can be and it is hard not to respond to perceived offenses and misunderstandings sometimes. I'm done reacting and will work on the merge and edit out anything not appropriate from both pages next week. This is not my full time gig, I just had some time off recently :) Hopefully others will add the pages as well. Help is always better than curt criticism, I think. --Nynewart (talk) (UTC)
It is entirely possible that both of your pages will be deleted, as I continue to firmly believe they should. Though likely not by next week. Nor will there likely be a "merge" by then. This process at AfD takes much longer than that, usually -- which will give you and others ample time to find and add reliable sources to both articles, should they exist. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you will help get them in proper form and I will research how to better do that. --Nynewart (talk) 8:05 EST — Preceding undated comment added 00:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this page should be retained for the genre-related reasons noted above. But to avoid further confusing/irritating Shawn, who nominated this deletion, I will limit my input about this film to the long established page about this film's director, Mark Miremont, which Shawn has also nominated for deletion. Please see my input there and thank you.

Nynewart (talk) 21:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've contested your points at the other Afd, as I believe they do not WP:VERIFY your claims for notability. As for this one, there is no such thing as a "genre-related reason" to keep an article such as this. WP:NOTFILM does indeed offer additional criteria for retaining film articles, but yours is not one of them, nor should it be. "Experimental films" do receive coverage from reliable sources -- if they're notable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There seems to be no source for notability. I think this "work in progress" ins a classic case of "not yet notable." Whether it is even significant enough for a redirect does not seem at all obvious. DGG ( talk ) 21:29, 27 March 2014 (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.