Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sideshow Cinema
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 of the debate was no consensus tending to keep. bainer (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sideshow Cinema
Films are non-notable. Actors are non-notable. Company is non-notable. Grocer 16:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related pages because: they are expansion biographies from the main article.:
.
Update: An extensive portion of Sideshow Cinema consists of biographies, including subjects of previously deleted articles: John Shanahan / Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Shanahan and Robin Gabrielli / Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robin_Gabrielli.
Delete. per nom. Official site is hosted on comcast.net (free personal web pages in only 5 minutes!) Nimby
- Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 16:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep! Sideshow Cinema is a notable production company for people who like independent films. These films are available world-wide including Amazon.com and many many other places both online and in stores. any of the films themselves have won awards at festivals. This is what notable is. Plank 17:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
DeleteDelete except Debbie RochonHaving a (small) cult following doesn't make it notable or encyclopedic. And beware if you google "Michael Legge", you're probably looking at results for this guy: Michael Legge (actor).per R. fiend and Calton --Grocer 18:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)- Keep Debbie Rochon at least. A Google search has 129,000 results for her. Surely you must be crazy to delete someone with that many Google results, as there are people with far less results here. ErikNY 18:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all , except perhaps Legge, and maybe Rochon. Most of this is blatant self-promotion, and part of a long running effort that has been plaguing wikipedia for years. -R. fiend 18:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - Those articles are not expansion articles from Sideshow Cinema, you are plain wrong! Those articles were created before the Sideshow Cinema article. Self promotion by whom? Plank 18:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Not again; some people here seem to have a rather unhealthy obsession with deleting these articles. Nimby's only given reason for deleting is irrelevant, and R fiend's accusation is clearly baseless (as he knows full well). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- Well, clearly not all the people at Sideshow Cinema are promoting themselves, but one or two are, and whether someone is promoting himself or his colleagues it's basically the same thing in the end. -R. fiend 19:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- Nimby's vote was on Sideshow Cinema alone, before I bundled the rest of the pages with this AfD. Sorry for the confusion. --Grocer 19:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- It;s still irrelevant; we don't decide to keep or delete articles on the basis of the hosting of the subject's Web site. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- We delete unverifiable promotional material all the time. About the only references for any of these are their own website and some imdb links, almost all of which have no information except what videos the subject appeared in. The main article is largely an effort to recreate several deleted articles in a different place. Some of these videos and their director probably just clear the bar for notability. But a bunch of peopel who appeared in 2 or 3 amateur videos for free are not professional actors, imdb entry or no imdb entry. -R. fiend 16:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- You haven't answered my point, which wasn't about the (unproved) claim about the articles being promotional, but about the sole argument given by Numby — "Official site is hosted on comcast.net". --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- The host site is not the issue here, whatever Numby says. I'm not going to vote to keep just because the nominator didn't use the best phrasing. The point is that we're looking at an article allegedly on a film company (actually a guy and his DVD burner), but really a showcase for a bunch of unpaid "actors" who appear in a few no-budget video projects one step up from home movies. Several of the people included have already been deleted. It's almost like someone wrote an article on a law firm which consisted entirely of profiles of everyone who worked there. Certainly actors generally have a higher level of notability than many other professions, but that doesn't mean anyone who has ever stood in front of a video camera and ecited lines is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. I'll give you that the director probably barely meets inclusion guidleines and perhaps his videos do too (those aren;t the issues here), but I for one do not believe in the trickle-down theory of notability, in which everyone associated with a somewhat notable thing is therefore notable. In any case, there is no third party verification for these folks, not that I've seen anyway. I guess Rochon is an excpetion. -R. fiend 16:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- Nimby was not the nominator, the arguments I gave for nomination are directly at the top. --Grocer 21:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- So I see. Even more to the point then. Just because Mel doesn't think the reasoning of a single voter is valid, that's hardly a reason to dismiss all who favor the same result. In any case, their website, which is pretty much the sole source for these articles, is on a free hosting service, which says quite a bit of the level of trust we should place in the source. -R. fiend 22:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- Nimby was not the nominator, the arguments I gave for nomination are directly at the top. --Grocer 21:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- The host site is not the issue here, whatever Numby says. I'm not going to vote to keep just because the nominator didn't use the best phrasing. The point is that we're looking at an article allegedly on a film company (actually a guy and his DVD burner), but really a showcase for a bunch of unpaid "actors" who appear in a few no-budget video projects one step up from home movies. Several of the people included have already been deleted. It's almost like someone wrote an article on a law firm which consisted entirely of profiles of everyone who worked there. Certainly actors generally have a higher level of notability than many other professions, but that doesn't mean anyone who has ever stood in front of a video camera and ecited lines is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. I'll give you that the director probably barely meets inclusion guidleines and perhaps his videos do too (those aren;t the issues here), but I for one do not believe in the trickle-down theory of notability, in which everyone associated with a somewhat notable thing is therefore notable. In any case, there is no third party verification for these folks, not that I've seen anyway. I guess Rochon is an excpetion. -R. fiend 16:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. So the movies are lousy, but they're legit. Amazon sells them [1] and IMDB lists them. That's good enough to make anybody else notable. Monicasdude 19:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- Amazon isn't exercising any judgment there, they're merely acting as selling agents for the DVD producers. If these DVDs were, say, stocked by any video stores outside their hometown or sold by Borders, then that might actually mean something. --Calton | Talk 00:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- But who said anything about judgement? And there are many, many important and significant films (and albums, and books) not sold by the chains like Borders or in local independent video shops (if there are many of those left), but available almost solely on the Internet. Are we really adopting a commercial definition for "significant? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Sure, there are significant films that are not sold by Borders, et al. These ain't them. and in any case, this AFD is not about the videos. It's about inconsequential people connected with perhaos barely notable videos, and a piss-poor article showcasing them. It's also about verifiablity. all we have is their host cite (not a legit source) and pathetically little info from imdb (which will list anyone and everyone in some way associated with anything related to film and video, and is often not reliable). Do we have any info on these people other than what they say about themselves? -R. fiend 16:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- Amazon isn't exercising any judgment there, they're merely acting as selling agents for the DVD producers. If these DVDs were, say, stocked by any video stores outside their hometown or sold by Borders, then that might actually mean something. --Calton | Talk 00:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep all. Notable. Rob T Firefly 02:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep all Indie though they may be, they're real, verifiable, released films. They're not big a-list stars or household names, but they're certainly notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- No films are being voted on. Those articles exist, but I did not include them. Are these people themselves notable? --Grocer 19:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- I think that by being directly and significantly involved with notable films, that makes them notable, yes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- No films are being voted on. Those articles exist, but I did not include them. Are these people themselves notable? --Grocer 19:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - User:Dwain (a.k.a. User:Pitchka), a contributor to these articles has been trolling my nominations on AfD [2] [3]. I suspect sockpuppetry is involved in the creation and maintenance of these articles. View the users' profiles and talk pages. Do these make sense to you? I also take issue with the legitimacy of the past votes on these articles. I have appended my vote to keep Debbie Rochon, but the rest is certianly non-notable. Amazon sells a lot of things, it should not be a measuring stick. --Grocer 19:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- Pitchka, who is one of the people in the Sideshow Cinema article or at least a close relation, has been making a nuisance of himself under various accounts for years. That's nothing new. As for Sideshow Cinema itself, is someone thinks this "company" deserves an article they should write one, not post headshots for a bunch of wannabe actors. Certainly BJ McCoy should be deleted. This article lists him as a writer, actor, and director, when imdb (the only source given) only has him listed as an actor in a bunch of homemade DVDs with sales ranks somewhere around 80,000. The only other thing it says is that he's half-Italian (on his mother's side); amatuerish, puerile, insignificant filler like that is commonplace in such articles: "Alan Kennedy is of no known relation to Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts" ( Pitchka hates Democrats). there is basically no third party verification for any of thes guys, other than a name in the credits. A bunch of suspicous accounts pop up, write blurbs on a bunch of people from this group, moving those that are deleted to their user subpages, and disappear. Quite frankly it's annoying. -R. fiend 03:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - Fiend I am tired of your lies and accusations! It is time you actually prove some of the trash that is coming out of your words. You are personally attacking me and I want it to stop now. You should be using better judgment than you are as an administartor. Prove your hateful accusations. WRONG:I don't "hate" Democrats I disagree with many of them and hate the actions of some of them, but I don't hate them. I know you are hoping to change the tide of this vote by bringing me into this, since some people don't like what I say. You also wrongly claim that I am a Sideshow Cinema member, very simply prove it! Michael Legge might be a Democrat so I must hate him! I am sick of your deranged rants and accusations about me. Is there something wrong with you? I'm not being sarcastic I'm honestly asking you this question. Dwain 16:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Fine, so you don't hate Democrats, you just refer to them as "the party of hate and evil" [4]. Boy was I way off base there. And maybe you're not Eric Bruno Borgman, and maybe you're not even a relation. You're just someone who loves the last name "Borgman" so much that you edited articles on every single person with that last name, often extensively, and creating a number of them yourself (just check everyone on the Borgman page), as well as bitterly defending them when they arrive at AFD. Likewise it's jusr coincidence that after Borgman's film "the Deseter" was deleted, you created a disambiguation page at that title and tried to sneak it back in. I suppose you have no connection to these other accounts that pop up and make a few edits to Borgman/Legge-related subjects, or the obvious sockpuppets like User:.0, whose first few months at Wikipedia were devoted almost exclusively to hosting deleted pages on these subjects in his user subpages. And there are other highly suspicious accounts. User:Genesius seems to have edited only articles related to Borgman, including putting his name in the List of Catholic American entertainers (there has been a long history of his name being inserted into every possible article. Just look at the first draft of Spencer: For Hire). About his only other edits seem to involve a person named Pezzati. Strangely enough, you've made quite a number of edits to people named Pezzati. What a coincidence! User:Ebbpeg is almost certainly Eric Borgman, despite his attempts to pretend to be female, and obfuscate his contributions by chnaging accounts numerous times. Whatever part you have or have not played in these charades, the fact remains that there has been a lot of highly suspect editing of many pages related to these topics. -R. fiend 00:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- Of course, you have not proven anything and you are right I have had an extensive amount of fun adding and adding to people named Borgman. You act like you've discovered some big secret but I have not tried to hide that I created many of these Borgman articles. I began working on the surname Borgman I believe directly in response to you and your hate-speak and if it wasn't you then it was someone exactly like you. And I've had quite a good time adding other media entitled The Deserter too. I know that everytime you see me edit The Deserter disambig page you rush there and I get a kick out of that! I don't believe you answered the question as to whether you have a problem and I apologize to you for editing people named Borgman and to The Deserter if of course there is something wrong with you, because it was never my intention to cause anguish to someone who may be disabled. Dwain 01:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, I forgot, I do have a problem. I have little tolerance for idiocy. I'm currently getting treatment though. -R. fiend 03:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- Of course, you have not proven anything and you are right I have had an extensive amount of fun adding and adding to people named Borgman. You act like you've discovered some big secret but I have not tried to hide that I created many of these Borgman articles. I began working on the surname Borgman I believe directly in response to you and your hate-speak and if it wasn't you then it was someone exactly like you. And I've had quite a good time adding other media entitled The Deserter too. I know that everytime you see me edit The Deserter disambig page you rush there and I get a kick out of that! I don't believe you answered the question as to whether you have a problem and I apologize to you for editing people named Borgman and to The Deserter if of course there is something wrong with you, because it was never my intention to cause anguish to someone who may be disabled. Dwain 01:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- Fine, so you don't hate Democrats, you just refer to them as "the party of hate and evil" [4]. Boy was I way off base there. And maybe you're not Eric Bruno Borgman, and maybe you're not even a relation. You're just someone who loves the last name "Borgman" so much that you edited articles on every single person with that last name, often extensively, and creating a number of them yourself (just check everyone on the Borgman page), as well as bitterly defending them when they arrive at AFD. Likewise it's jusr coincidence that after Borgman's film "the Deseter" was deleted, you created a disambiguation page at that title and tried to sneak it back in. I suppose you have no connection to these other accounts that pop up and make a few edits to Borgman/Legge-related subjects, or the obvious sockpuppets like User:.0, whose first few months at Wikipedia were devoted almost exclusively to hosting deleted pages on these subjects in his user subpages. And there are other highly suspicious accounts. User:Genesius seems to have edited only articles related to Borgman, including putting his name in the List of Catholic American entertainers (there has been a long history of his name being inserted into every possible article. Just look at the first draft of Spencer: For Hire). About his only other edits seem to involve a person named Pezzati. Strangely enough, you've made quite a number of edits to people named Pezzati. What a coincidence! User:Ebbpeg is almost certainly Eric Borgman, despite his attempts to pretend to be female, and obfuscate his contributions by chnaging accounts numerous times. Whatever part you have or have not played in these charades, the fact remains that there has been a lot of highly suspect editing of many pages related to these topics. -R. fiend 00:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - Fiend I am tired of your lies and accusations! It is time you actually prove some of the trash that is coming out of your words. You are personally attacking me and I want it to stop now. You should be using better judgment than you are as an administartor. Prove your hateful accusations. WRONG:I don't "hate" Democrats I disagree with many of them and hate the actions of some of them, but I don't hate them. I know you are hoping to change the tide of this vote by bringing me into this, since some people don't like what I say. You also wrongly claim that I am a Sideshow Cinema member, very simply prove it! Michael Legge might be a Democrat so I must hate him! I am sick of your deranged rants and accusations about me. Is there something wrong with you? I'm not being sarcastic I'm honestly asking you this question. Dwain 16:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Pitchka, who is one of the people in the Sideshow Cinema article or at least a close relation, has been making a nuisance of himself under various accounts for years. That's nothing new. As for Sideshow Cinema itself, is someone thinks this "company" deserves an article they should write one, not post headshots for a bunch of wannabe actors. Certainly BJ McCoy should be deleted. This article lists him as a writer, actor, and director, when imdb (the only source given) only has him listed as an actor in a bunch of homemade DVDs with sales ranks somewhere around 80,000. The only other thing it says is that he's half-Italian (on his mother's side); amatuerish, puerile, insignificant filler like that is commonplace in such articles: "Alan Kennedy is of no known relation to Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts" ( Pitchka hates Democrats). there is basically no third party verification for any of thes guys, other than a name in the credits. A bunch of suspicous accounts pop up, write blurbs on a bunch of people from this group, moving those that are deleted to their user subpages, and disappear. Quite frankly it's annoying. -R. fiend 03:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep per positive comments above. Deckiller 20:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep at least the main article on the group (though it still does need cleanup). While not exactly notable, it seems theres enough verifiable information, and enough collective notability between the actors and the films to warrant at least one article. -Dawson 04:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Relist Separately - Articles like Steven Mullahoo should not exist, and entries on many of the films should not exist. Wikipedia is not just a list of every piece of film ever produced, and is not a catalogue of anyone who has ever worked in a film. This is either self promotion, or the work of some obsessive fan. Many of the actors mentioned in the Sideshow Cinema article shouldn't me even mentioned within the article, it should just be a merged article of the major players and the films. I mean Sick Time?! Why not create an article for every porn movie and porn actress there is, it's just about as notable. - Hahnchen 03:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Mel and Monicas dude, might be some potential for merging less notable items. Kappa 10:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- Re-list Seperately, as per Hahnchen's reasoning. It really just reads like self promotion. -- Yossarian
10:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC) - Delete all. A walled garden of filmmaking nobodies, mostly constructed by the subjects, with transparently obvious purpose of self-promotion. --Calton | Talk 00:03, 9 March 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.
