Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democrazy (movie)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. The votes were 16 delete, 9 keep. dbenbenn | talk 15:18, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Democrazy (movie)

READ THIS FIRST

Please note that Wikipedia official policy is No Personal Attacks. This policy is taken very seriously, not because we all want to be super–politically correct or hypocritically polite, but because Wikipedia can only function by consensus. Insults only inflame the emotions of the other party and make them more stubborn and less likely to want to compromise with you. So banning personal attacks has nothing to do with enforced "morality", it's purely a practical measure to dampen edit wars and other conflicts before they escalate. For the above reasons, in certain cases users with a pattern of repeated personal attacks have even been blocked, just for "mere words". -- Curps 05:41, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This was previously deleted by a VfD at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Democrazy in October 2004 but was recently recreated. It was tagged for automatic speedy deletion as a re-creation of a VfD'd article, but the author and other advocates cite changed circumstances (the film has now been released). Enough time has passed to make it appropriate to nominate for a second VfD as an alternative to automatic delete-again. -- Curps 19:47, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. IMDB shows no match for such a title. It would have been better to wait for at least an IMDB listing to establish notability... Wikipedia should not be used as part of a marketing campaign, if this was the intention of the possibly premature re-creation of this article. With no notability established, it seems appropriate to vote for deletion. (I also nominated above; be careful not to count my vote twice). -- Curps 19:57, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Was part of a slew of advertising that included The Man in the Movie and The Deserter, both now deleted. I still say it should be speedied, as this is the 3rd time the content has been readded (though by a different person this time). Xezbeth 20:04, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Who cares what you think. You have proven that you aren't an expert on anything. It doesn't take talent or brains to vote to delete things meaninglessly. Plank 23:57, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Plank, you are way out of line, here. If you have read the Wikipedia policy on civility, you need a refresher. If you haven't, please read it. If your aim is to intimidate people into voting Keep, I think you will find that doesn't work. Even the folks who are pretty easy-going about what should be in the Wikipedia don't like that. --BM 00:35, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • You are out of line even suggesting that he may be trying to intimidate people. How dare you! Why don't you read up on the user name policy, if you can, because where I come from BM means bowel movement. But perhaps you already know that! I find your dirty user name offensive! So don't you try and lecture people BM. I know that you are trying to provoke people. I've seen first hand how "easy going" some of you Wikifascists are! You people who are so hateful and have some sort of warped agenda in seeing these films, that an awful lot of people love to watch, erased, you are creating precidents for the future so some of your articles might one day be in jeapardy because of things you are saying now. But the joke is on you! And BM who cares what you have to say either. You surely haven't impressed me with anything you have written. Your name seems to say it all. Dwain 05:06, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
      • BM happens to be the initials of my actual name. I don't have a middle name. Sorry you find my user name offensive. Apparently I don't come from where you come from, since your association with my initials never even occurred to me. Toilet euphemisms exhibit a huge amount of regional variation, and not realizing this evidences a certain amount of ... provincialism. But thanks for commenting, honeybunch; you need to reread the Wikipedia policy on civility, too, however. --BM 12:30, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep By the way CURPS, it is not recommended that you vote at all since you are the one who posted it for deletion. Plank 21:29, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Of course I can vote, just like the page creator can vote. Usually posting for deletion is an implicit vote in favor of deletion, but in this case I needed to clarify the circumstances. -- Curps 21:59, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I was going to say redirect to Michael Legge (filmmaker), but the fact that the articles on Lorna Nogueira and Robin Gabrielli have just survived VfD swayed me. Still borderline IMO, no reviews yet on Yahoo Shopping, and released only as a DVD. Andrewa 22:01, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Nearly all of the actors survived VfD, but only because there were only a half-dozen or so votes each time, and the page creators voted to keep, so no consensus was reached. None of them were decided "Keep", just "No consensus". So notability for the actors is therefore not established (IMDB suggests it's entirely lacking), and there is no such notability to rub off onto the film itself. -- Curps 23:05, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Old VfDs for the actors are here:
    • Michael Legge, director, no VfD
    • Lorna Nogueira (3-3, no consensus)
    • Robin Gabrielli (3-2, no consensus)
    • Diane Mela (3-3, no consensus)
    • Steve Mullahoo (3-0, deleted)
    • John Shannahan, no article ever created
    • Stacy Armstrong (5-3, no consensus)
• Delete. Seems to be an amateur production [1], so I don't think a IMDB entry will follow. Mgm|^(talk) 22:17, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Just letting you know, that you are wrong. Honey Glaze has a listing at IMDB so why should this one not? Plank
• Keep obviously. Judging by the crtiteria used to delete this article, anyone creating an article on a film or album on Wikipedia, would be accused of being part of their "marketing campaign". That position doesn't sit well with me. Megan1967 22:44, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • The point is, this film was so recently released (a week or two ago) that it doesn't even have an IMDB entry. That's why it seems this is jumping the gun, as an effort to drum up publicity for the film. -- Curps 23:05, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • You are right, YOU are jumping the gun in wanting to erase the film. Just because it hasn't been listed YET on IMDB it should be deleted? Is that how this Wikipedia works if it's not on IMDB erase it? Of course, then when movies and people, that deltionists want to get rid of, are listed on IMDB suddenly we hear that IMDB will list anything and anyone and it doesn't mean anything. Basically, if a few crack pots take a dislike to something they can keep demanding it be deleted regardless of how many Google hits or listings. Plank
  • It's worth noting that you are the re-creator of the article, so your vote is understandable, although you are usually a strong deletionist. -- Curps 23:16, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • People assume I am a deletionist but that's not the case. You will find that the ratio with my votes is around 60/40, but then this is VfD so you would expect a higher number of deletes. Megan1967 02:26, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Extreme weak keep. —RaD Man (talk) 23:07, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. You can buy the DVD from Amazon. Released 25 Jan 2005. DVD Sales rank of 38,700. If the precedent is that any released movie is notable, OK, but is that the precedent? This doesn't seem like a very notable movie as yet. --BM 00:27, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Makes me cringe. Name seems to be borrowed from [2], and Damon Albarn album; Mr Plank isn't winning heart or mind. -Ashley Pomeroy 00:44, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, just because it already lost a VfD. bbx 00:57, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not the Internet Movie Database. Average Earthman 02:12, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not worth keeping before, not worth keeping now just because you bought the DVD, Plank. --Calton 03:28, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Whose sockpuppet are you Calton you sound like several other voters over different articles? Dwain
    • Withdraw that loathesome remark or you'll be looking at an RfC. --Calton 09:53, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Note - Calton has over 1700 edits in the English language Wikipedia. Average Earthman 13:11, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep "Look, Rufferto! A fray!" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:38, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. There is a reminder at the top of the page about civility and Wikiquette. It is unfortunate that it has not always been followed in this vote. People marking intemperate remarks should remember that it has the potential to negatively influence impartial observers in that vote (for evidence, see DNAGod in pervious debates). It also has the potential to give the user a bad reputation amongst fellow Wikipedians in the future. Capitalistroadster 00:01, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Interesting... Many google hits for "Democrazy" but darn few that refer to this movie. A tighter search returns only 19 non-duplicative hits. The film was released on 25 Jan 2005 - apparently straight to DVD. Of the few websites covering it, only one had a review (from a single person who gave it 7 on a scale of 10). Independent films should get a little bit more slack than films from the big houses but I'm not finding enough evidence to convince me that this one is encyclopedic. Delete unless further evidence can be found. Rossami (talk) 02:41, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: promo. A note to Pitchka and Plank: stop trolling. A note to everyone else: don't feed the trolls. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:45, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Recreation of a non-notable page previously deleted. And the incivility of some of the would-be keepers of this page isn't helping to sway votes their way. —Lowellian (talk) 12:24, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, bad-faith advertisement. —Korath (Talk) 11:51, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Kevin Rector 22:54, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --BM 18:14, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. 14 displayed hits for "Michael Legge" democrazy, about the numbers I'd expect of someone selling self-produced DVDs out of the back of their truck. Niteowlneils 18:28, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Gamaliel 18:39, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• There are far less noteworthy movies on Wikipedia than this. I say vote Keep. Leanne 22:02, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Definite Keep,if there are other movie articles in exactly the same format as Democrazy, why are they not being accused of advertising? Seems to be a double standard. Iam 22:27, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not one to frivolously cry "sockpuppet," but the contributions of these two users (Leanne's, Iam's) look remarkably similar, and their insertion between earlier comments [3] strikes me as suspicious as well. —Korath (Talk) 01:48, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Personally, I think there is greater similarity and evidence that you are a sockpuppet of Lowellian! Plank 18:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • You better withdraw that accusation Korath. Because your comments look "remarkably" like a personal attack. Leanne 22:15, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Out of curiosity, could either Leanne or Iam explain the diff that Korath pointed out [4]? Also, the contributions do seem very similar for two users who have never posted on each other's talk page. That obviously isn't proof of anything, but I can see how inserting above earlier votes would strike someone as suspicious. Carrp | Talk 22:29, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • (To be clear, that diff covers two consecutive revisions. —Korath (Talk) 23:27, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC))
          • The diff is a little confusing since it makes it look like one user added two votes. However, I was just looking for an answer to why both Leanne and Iam added their votes above existing votes. It was good to clarify what the diff shows though. Carrp | Talk 23:32, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
            • Not only is it confusing but it's plainly false, because the page had been manipulated to make it appear it was the same person voting. Leanne 00:45, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
              • It probably would have been better as two separate diffs, but there's still the question of why two users with very similar contributions both made the same minor error in voting. Carrp | Talk 00:59, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. JYolkowski 23:45, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. Carrp | Talk 19:01, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Carrp, you voted after the 5 day limit for this VfD, note your timestamp. Leanne 00:45, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • On the main VfD page it says "Items sent here usually wait five days or so" (emphasis is mine). Voting on a VfD on the "Old" page is allowed. There's still pages from Feb 7th that haven't been processed. Carrp | Talk 00:57, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.