Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:08, 4 October 2006

Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 September)

29 September 2006

They_Came_Back

I would like the closing of this AfD for suposed trolling reviewed. I feel I presented evidence that shows the movie is not notable and further that it fails every aspect of the proposed guideline of Misplaced Pages:Notability (films). The article shows no notoriety in the film either. The original AfD proposal is Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/They_Came_Back and a repost of my arguements is below:

Fails Misplaced Pages:Notability (films) on almost all levels, rundown listed below. NuclearUmpf 16:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

In general a film is notable if it meets one or more of the following criteria:

1. The film has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the film and its creators/producers.
   • This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and full-length magazine reviews except for the following:

   Only one review provided in web based magazine. Slant magazine

2. The film has been theatrically released nationwide in a country, or into 200 or more commercial theaters.

   Per IMDB release information it has not been.

3. The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.

   No awards issued

4. The film is a full length film released by a major studio.

   Has not been

I hope people can look at the evidence and not an admins accusations, we do not keep or delete articles for reasons outside of the AfD process itself. I hope people voice their opinions on the matter according to the content itself and our guidelines here. --NuclearUmpf 19:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments
I'm having trouble finding these policies that you are quoting. I've been to the WP:Film page and I don't see these things. Could you provide me an actual link so that I may be more objective, thank you. Bignole 19:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Clarified thank you. --NuclearUmpf 19:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've check this out, and I've found some issues with it. The page you are referencing currently is neither policy nor guideline, and is really only something someone wants to be established. So, using this as a basis really isn't satisfying in terms of deletion. I have looked at the film page and it is in dier need of information. Currently, it has almost no information, not even a well established format. I'm not aware of how many editors are working on this page, but someone needs to update it, especially since the film has been out since 2004. As for the things you did bring up, I would find another source besides IMDb.com. They have become notorious for not researching their information, especially lately. I'm sure more than 1 review could be found if actually searched for. I think the main problem with this article is more of editors not caring enough to do some research than there not being enough out there to support it. I think if there is truly nothing out there for this film then it should be deleted, but there usually is. BUT, it wouldn't surprise me if everything that is found is in French, and thus better suited for one of the foreign language Wiki's. But, this is just my opinion on the matter. Bignole 19:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I have done part of the research sales etc from IMDB, the movie was not released wide, you can look at the link and find other information if you require. The movie fails basic notability, it then goes on to fail notability on the grounds of the proposed methods for films of establishing notability. As articles are required to establish their notability I think it against speaks for itself as why it should be deleted. I would just like the AfD reopened so people can put their own opinions in as I feel it was unfairly closed. --NuclearUmpf 21:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and Relist, only because it is not apparent (or "obvious") why the nominator was allegedly trolling. The nomination itself was well-reasoned (whether you agree with the reasoning or not), and without anything else I cannot assume that this nomination was in bad faith. Even if WP:FILM is not a policy or a guideline, there is nothing to say that the criteria cannot be a consideration in deletion or retention. I have to assume the nomination was made in good faith. That said, I doubt it would end up being deleted after a proper AfD ran its course, because it looks like this film does meet encyclopedic criteria. However I am only considering the AfD results - this is not the place to argue the merits of the article. Agent 86 23:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• He's using a proposed guideline that is blindly copied from other notability pages in an effort to pervert what's been standard practice — and essentially undisputed — regarding film articles for some time. Couple this with this same user's consistent disruptiveness and deliberate obfuscation on WP:ANI, I see no reason to believe this was anything but an effort to waste time.--SB | T 00:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Did you honestly overturn an AfD because of my AN/I comments? I dont just comment on AN/I I started the Operation Sinbad article, sourced the Abu Sayyaf article heavily as well as other articles I have sourced. I think this proves why this should be overturned, this admin is seeking revenge. --NuclearUmpf 15:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and Relist neither the fact that the nominator has a history of misbehavior nor the fact that Sean Black disagrees with the proposed guideline (which is WP:NOTFILM, by the way) are appropriate speedy criteria. Eluchil404 02:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Troll User:NuclearUmpf account was created September 18, 2006. His very first action was to put an article up for deletion. Since then the majority of his edits have edits have been arguments on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. When I voted to keep the article Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Muhamad Naji Subhi Al Juhani, he then put my article that I just created, They Came Back, up for deletion. I will let the admin know that he is arguing about this deletion, along with all the other admins that he is arguing with on the Administrators' noticeboard. Travb (talk) 02:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

  Comment Please do not continue your personal attacks, your options are relist, endorse or overturn. --NuclearUmpf 13:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, develop, and move. I think it may be best served on the French Misplaced Pages, seeing as it is a French movie, produced there, distributed there, was nominated for 4 Foreign Awards. I've check and there isn't an article for it on the French Misplaced Pages. I'm not sure how it works, and I highly doubt you can just copy it and the French version will automatically update it. I think it needs a lot of work to even be a decent film page (as it stands now it's just bare). None of these rules are required, and if they were then more than half of the articles on Films in Misplaced Pages would be deleted by now. A more comprenhensive page should be created, and the entire thing should be moved to it's appropriate Wiki. Bignole 06:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Generally, if a subject merits an article in one Misplaced Pages, it merits one in all of them, so if it isn't appropriate here it isn't appropriate in frWiki either. Even if they had different standards I don't see how the fact that the movie comes from France is relevant - only a quarter of the French-language Misplaced Pages's potential audience lives in France. --Sam Blanning 15:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say that it doesn't merit an article, I said that it doesn't belong on this Wiki. Unless you'd like to decypher all the French that goes into the film, the reviews, and all the other production information, then it's clear it should be on the French Misplaced Pages. It just lacks information. I never said it should be deleted completely, look at what I wrote please. I said to keep it, develop it into a coherent article and then have someone translate it to the appropriate place. If you can find enough sources in English for it, then great, keep it here..but if not then it belongs on the French site (where they deal with French articles). Having separate language Wiki's doesn't always translate to exact same amount of content. Bignole 15:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I want to point out that the awards are not industry wide awards it was nominated for (didnt win any) they are only festival awards. --NuclearUmpf 16:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Not the point, cause most movies don't win awards nor are they even nominated for anything. The point of that was to express how foreign the film actually is, and how more appropriate on another Wiki it is. Unless enough information can be found in English, then it belongs on the French Wiki. Bignole 16:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter what language the sources of an article are: as long as the article is in English, it goes to the English language Misplaced Pages. You can have articles here that are entirely sourced with foreign language references (from WP:RS:"foreign-language sources are acceptable in terms of verifiability, subject to the same criteria as English-language sources"). In this case, the external reviews from the imdb page lists 18 English language reviews, so the whole point is moot anyway. - Bobet 21:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep the afd seems to be in bad faith. That the soundtrack to this movie has been written by seminal composer Jocelyn Pook is reason enough to believe the entry is suitably notable. Remove the afd tag and move on please.--Mrmusichead 14:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

  Comment This is not AfD, you are not deciding to keep or delete the article. --NuclearUmpf 16:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure as relisting is self-evidently a waste of everyone's time, as was coming to WP:DRV. The film was released in France on 27 October 2004 (confirmed by the IMDb link produced by the requestor) at which time it was reviewed in Le Monde, Le Figaro and Libération, among others. Not much point in reopening the AFD when the nomination is at best WP:OSTRICH. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)