Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hopscotch (film)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have new messages (last change).
- 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 Speedy keep on withdrawal of nomination and no support from other people for deletion. Capitalistroadster 02:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hopscotch (film)
Perhaps I'm wrong here but this doesn't strike me as being a notable film either historically or qualitatively. I know the film well, and even the article screams mediocrity. On the other hand there may be notability criteria for films, of which I am unaware, that make this a perfectly acceptable article in which case I'm happy to be corrected. Cain Mosni 15:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep, bordering on Speedy Keep. AfD is not cleanup, and there's nothing so egreigiously bad about the article that a full rewrite is necessary. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I think you misunderstand - I was simply pointing out that the article's own description of the film simply confirm's its mediocrity. There's nothing wrong with the article per se. (IMO, naturally.) Cain Mosni 16:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- You're right, I don't understand. Are you trying to say it should be deleted because you didn't think it was very good? Not only isn't that a deletion criterion, but the rest of the world seems to disagree: It has a Criterion Collection release, several award nominations (including a Best Actor Golden Globe for Walter Matthau), 3 stars from Roger Ebert, and a high 7.0 average on the IMDB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I think you misunderstand - I was simply pointing out that the article's own description of the film simply confirm's its mediocrity. There's nothing wrong with the article per se. (IMO, naturally.) Cain Mosni 16:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep I'd say this is a keeper. You have major actors in the film, also this was a widely released film. Easily passes being notable for me at least. Wildthing61476 16:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment So, by that rationale, any film with notable cast members is a candidate for Wikipedia? That rather suggests to me that a huge number of very bland, uninfluential, middle-of-the-road films are going to end up with articles. My nomination for deletion was predicated on the assumption that the film should have some specific significance in its own right (be it historically, socially, or in its influence on the industry). Cain Mosni 16:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- To answer your question, yes. Middle of the road movies and even horrible movies deserve articles if they are verifiable and national or international releases. A movie doesn't have to have won an award or be Citizen Kane to have an article. That's one advantage of having an online encyclopedia; you can include a lot of extra information that a printed encyclopedia couldn't handle. Dugwiki 17:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. When you open an encyclopaedia of films, such as ISBN 1579581463, what do you expect to find? Uncle G 18:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well if I were looking at a general encyclopaedia (which is the light I have always viewed WP in) then I'd not expect to find documented anything but those films which were industrial milestones, iconic or historically influential. In a specialist encyclopaedia of film, however the field would naturally be much braoder. Your point is well made, and understood. As nominator, I'd like to see this closed as a speedy keep. Cain Mosni 18:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment So, by that rationale, any film with notable cast members is a candidate for Wikipedia? That rather suggests to me that a huge number of very bland, uninfluential, middle-of-the-road films are going to end up with articles. My nomination for deletion was predicated on the assumption that the film should have some specific significance in its own right (be it historically, socially, or in its influence on the industry). Cain Mosni 16:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Strong, speedy keep - bad faith nomination (stop the ridiculous AfDs!!!) PT (s-s-s-s) 17:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- What it would be better to stop are your repeated accusations of bad faith, levelled at every nominator that you have disagreed with today. Uncle G 18:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- I calls them as I sees them. PT (s-s-s-s) 18:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Given that I went as far as saying quite clearly that I was perfectly open to correction if my judgement of the criteria was flawed (which it appears has proven to be the case), it wouldn't be unreasonable to think that perhaps your accusation is made in bad faith (and in a fit of pique). Cain Mosni 18:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- I calls them as I sees them. PT (s-s-s-s) 18:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- What it would be better to stop are your repeated accusations of bad faith, levelled at every nominator that you have disagreed with today. Uncle G 18:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep notable film, long list of notable actors per IMDB.--Lord of Illusions 19:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- 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.
