Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wolftime

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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wolftime

Contested PROD. Delete as this production company fails WP:CORP. No verifiability from third-party reliable sources; all of three Google hits (merely searching for the title gives mostly irrelevant results) that point solely to this entity's Geocities website. WP:NFT and/or WP:VANITY may also apply per the intimate knowledge that they premiered [their] latest film, Silhouettes, at a Bay Area high school on September 7, 2006. --Kinu t/c 00:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Also nominated: Silhouettes, the film created by this group. --Kinu t/c 00:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the accusations that the article "Wolftime" as well as the article "Silhouettes" fail WP:CORP. I view them rather as descriptions of the endeavors of entrepreneurial teenage filmmakers, including the mentioned Kevin Walker. I also view it as irrelevant the the official website is hosted by GeoCities, since the company still has a domain name registered on the WHOIS database. Thus, I do not believe the mentioned articles should be subject to deletion. Keep in mind that Wolftime is an independent company, and likely doesn't make a profit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kevinw91 (talk • contribs).

I would like to mention that Wolftime has made three films, has won two awards in esteemed film festivals with three nominations. The score for their latest film was written by a professional film composer who has made collaborations with such names as Bill Clinton, Sophia Loren, and Antonio Banderas (see beintus.com). Wolftime Films is a legitimate company, and the article is in no way intended to be a sales pitch or a marketing ploy, since the organization does not make a profit. I view it as inadvertent prejudice that the company is marked as illegitimate based on the appearance and Google rankings of their site.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kevinw91 (talk • contribs).

  • Delete The company and film are not "illegitimate", merely non-notable. Seriously, these are films that only a tiny number of people will ever see or even hear of. The fact that a web search doesn't find any of them outside wofltime's geocities page says that pretty much no one has even taken notice of them, and that they, and their awards, are unverifiable. Wikipedia does not exist to help encourage or publicize unknown entrepreneurs, teenage or otherwise. Fan-1967 01:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The Wolftime site receives over 60 hits daily as recorded by both Yahoo! statistics and Google Analytics statistics, and the site has been viewn by users from around the world. The films have been watched an appreciated by hundreds, who access the site via the domain wolftime.com. I cannot comprehend why one would take so much time and effort to try to remove a legitimate article from Wikipedia. There is nothing abusive or market-driven in the article, and I believe the users pursuing the deletion should respect this independent production company.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kevinw91 (talk • contribs).

  • Comment: Respect has nothing to do with it. Verifiability is a policy on Wikipedia, and WP:WEB and WP:CORP are consensus-driven guidelines for inclusion of articles on websites and companies. You are welcome to address the points addressed therein, and then (more imporantly) provide verifiability through reliable sources indicating that the site or company meets one or more of these points, in order to persuade others to recommend keeping this article. --Kinu t/c 01:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

May I request the cause of your pressing concerns for the deletion of the Wolftime-related articles? Perhaps some compromise can be made.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kevinw91 (talk • contribs).

According to the Wikipedia guidelines: "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations..." Considering the vast audience of Wolftime Films, I believe it complies with the Wikipedia requirements for notability.

The films have been published outside of Wolftime.com in numerous notable film festivals.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kevinw91 (talk • contribs).

  • Comment On talk pages and in discussions, please sign your posts by typing four tilde's (~~~~) at the end of your entry. It will translate to your user name with the date and time. Otherise, discussions are extremely hard to follow. The links that have already been posted, WP:WEB and WP:CORP, explain the standards. Your company, website and films do not meet the standards. No press coverage, no public attention, no verifiability, no notability. I'm sorry if you feel that's harsh. Fan-1967 01:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable and per nom. By the way, the films have been "published in film festivals"? How does that happen? Is that an attempt to make "shown at film festivals" sound like it meets the cited criterion? Hmmm... - W guice 01:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I do feel that this whole debate is harsh an illogical. Would somebody please explain why these users are so adamantly concerned with this matter. The inclusion of the articles would not harm anybody (except perhaps the users who care so much about deleting them). Wolftime films has been viewed by public audiences, included in a number of publications regarding film festivals the movies have appeared in, including city government publications. Kevinw91 01:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

cuz a free encyclopedia is a good idea, but a free encyclopedia with quality control is an even better one. - W guice 02:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a film festival screening would qualify as a published work. Kevinw91 01:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. Very much depends on the festival. Sundance, Cannes - yes. Others - assess by situation - W guice 02:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's end this debate, keep the Wolftime article, and as a compromise delete the Silhouettes article.

  • Comment: Claiming that an article would not harm anybody is an oft-rehashed tactic for retaining articles that do not meet the goals of the project, which is to be an encyclopedia. Verifiability is a policy. You have been provided sufficient information to indicate what these articles need for them to be kept. You have made claims to notability; so source them. I apologize if that sounds harsh, but if these articles cannot meet that core requirement, then they will most certainly be deleted. --Kinu t/c 01:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It is not just your company. There are thousands of aspiring filmmakers trying to gain some exposure by listing their short films here. Films which may have been screened at a festival or two, but have hardly been reviewed anywhere, written up anywhere, noticed anywhere. Most have received more notice than your films, which seem to have received none at all. Wikipedia does not exist to promote unknown people or enterprises, but to document those which have already become notable. Fan-1967 02:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the claim by Kinu that the article violates WP:VANITY is ad hominim, a court term proving that "an argument is an attack again against the person." I am afraid to say that the user does not have credibility in the debate, considering this serious violation of argumentative ethics. Kevinw91 02:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: I'll leave it to the other editors to determine whether it is too much of a stretch to suggest that User:Kevinw91 is the same "Kevin Walker" named in the article. --Kinu t/c 02:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, my name is Kevin Walker (I apologize if it seemed that I was trying to hide that). Nice to meet you. Allow me to again reiterate that this is not an unknown company, nor an unknown film. They have received a great deal of attention by hundreds of people. Perhaps I can get you to see the latest one, "Silhouettes?" Kevinw91

  • Comment. You've spent enough time trying to do that in the article itself. By the way, someone saying the company or film fails WP:VANITY isn't an ad hominem attack. S/he's not calling you vain, s/he's referring to a policy (that s/he didn't write) which happens to bear that name. What's the argumentative ethics term for being really disingenuous again? - W guice 02:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that s/he cited a Wikipedia requirement against vanity. Thus, s/he is citing the article I wrote as vain. Kevinw91

I would like to draw attention to one of my previous comments supporting Wolftime as a legitimate company enjoyed by the public and, just like the other filmmakers you mentioned, has been featured in "one or more film festivals": Wolftime has made three films, has won two awards in esteemed film festivals with three nominations. The score for their latest film was written by a professional film composer who has made collaborations with such names as Bill Clinton, Sophia Loren, and Antonio Banderas (see beintus.com). Kevinw91

Let me mention as well that the article was not trying to market "Silhouettes." W guice, "You've spent enough time trying to do that in the article itself." That is certainly an ad hominim, sarcastic attack. Kevinw91

I am arguing for the inclusion of the articles because it is my life ambition. You are arguing for their deletion because you feel contempt against my company. Can you please expain why. Kevinw91

  • Comment Even if we were to set notability totally aside (which we won't), the #1 ironclad rule here is Verifiability from Reliable Sources. That one's non-negotiable. We have here an article written by you, about your company, and the only source is a website created by you. No other source is available to verify that these films have been shown anywhere. Fan-1967 02:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I assure you the world will be the same place if you let this go. I urge you to spend time on more important matters (matters I would be attending to if it weren't for this debate). Keep in mind that any profit that Wolftime makes goes to charity. By the way: http://berkeleyvideofilmfest.org/ search the page for "Teen Planet." I'll look for more verifiable links. Kevinw91

That picture is of me and my co-director receiving an award in front of hundreds of people in a UC Berkeley auditorium for the screening of "Teen Planet," a Wolftime film. Though it's not a great picture of me (lol). Kevinw91

Oh, I'm sorry, was that last comment a violation of WP:VANITY? Kevinw91

Here is a link for you to view "Silhouettes." I hope you enjoy it. I apologize for taking two and a half hours of your time, but I just want you to take this company seriously. http://www.geocities.com/wolftimefilms/media/films/silhouettes/silhouettes_medium.mov Kevinw91

  • Comment Taking you seriously is not the issue. Wikipedia does not exist to promote unknown ventures. Period. The result of this AfD was never in doubt from the moment it was posted. Continuing this discussion won't change it. Fan-1967 02:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You can't be serious! I have given you a link to verify the company. I have even offered a compromise. Can we please close this discussion, I have a lot to do regarding this film. It has an estimated site circulation of 220 people in the next three days surrounding the film's premiere. Kevinw91

Keep in mind that the purpose of Wikipedia is to have lots of articles detailing practically everything in the world. This includes independent production companies, and in my case, a legitimate, verified company. Would you please give me your phone number if you wish to debate this in person. Kevinw91

  • You're mistaken. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and the link to our standard for companies has been repeatedly posted here. You've verified that one of your films was shown. Doesn't make it remotely notable. Nobody in the press wrote it up or commented on it. I'm sorry if our continuing this conversation gave you any impression that there was any chance for the articles. There never was. Fan-1967 02:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Nothing further (such as a link to a encyclopedia policy or notability guideline) can be suggested that has not already been mentioned at least once herein. Whether you choose to take those suggestions or simply ignore them is up to you. I am recusing myself from the remainder of this discussion. Best of luck in the future. --Kinu t/c 02:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

How am I to verify that the films have been mentioned in print? What I am dealing with is bureaucracy. Unfortunately, I have lost a great deal of respect for the Wikipedia system because of this. Again, if you truly care so much about removing an insignificant article about Wolftime Films, please give me your number so we can talk in person, otherwise we will be here all night. Kevinw91

  • No we won't. I have other things to do tonight, and I'll repeat: continuing this discussion will make no difference. We have policies. You don't like them. That's it. Best of luck. Fan-1967

Yes. I would consider this conversation to be harsh. Kevinw91

  • Delete per nom. --Aaron 04:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:CORP zephyr2k 04:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Different Tack Have you been in a newspaper or magazine article, or is your film on imdb, or something that would imply that anyone other than you knows anything about this? You don't know if you have or not? Whenever I'm in the paper, my Mom cuts out the article and sends it to me, and so do 15 other people. Lots of times, the publisher will let you know if you have a mention. If you don't know whether you've been covered, than you probably haven't. Did these festivals have materials or webpages or anything like that? The problem isn't that you're writing about yourself; the problem is that only you have been writing about yourself. If you do, then you'll probably be fine. If not, then your company probably isn't ready to be included yet. rather than talking about WP:CORP or the badly named WP:Vanity policy, we probably should be talking about the verifyability argument. How can people find the more complete resources to back up this article? If they wanted to learn more about you, where would they go, other then to your own web page? GumbyProf: "I'm about ideas, but I'm not always about good ideas." 05:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Finally a user that has productive comments. I know what you mean about the "being in the paper" thing. I received lots of cut-outs when my films have been mentioned in print. Go to http://berkeleyvideofilmfest.org/ search the page for "teen planet." The image is of my co-director and I accepting an award in front of a large audience for the screening of a Wolftime film. Visit this site: http://dicff.org/pages/12/index.htm and click the schedule link. Search the page for "the kid who talked too much" and you will find information about the screening. The PDF on the page links to a schedule that inludes the two screenings of "The Kid Who Talked too Much." The film is pending on the IMDb. The other proof I have is on paper, and therefore I cannot convey it online.

  • Delete both despite vigorous defense from creator; nonnotable film and production company. NawlinWiki 06:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I object to the last comment. No, just kidding. But I honestly don't see why so many people care about getting rid of something that doesn't affect them personally. I know this sounds a little "live and let live" but can't you guys just let it go? I'll fight it all the way through to its deletion. Nonetheless, I'm sure minds will change once more information has been certified on IMDb proving that this company is far more than Kinu and others realize. Just give it a chance, and yeah, live and let live. There are far more important things going on that we should all make an issue about. If anything, this debate is just driving a lot of traffic to wolftime.com, which wasn't the intention in the first place, despite above claims. This is trivial. You are not saving the world or making it a better place by opting to delete an article that myself and many others truly care about. Consider that. I'm leaving the discussion. Kevinw91

  • Making the encyclopedia a tiny bit of a better place is enough for me. But hey - just to show there's no hard feelings, get notable enough and i'll write you up myself --W guice 11:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both per nominator. JIP | Talk 09:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both Apparently the website only gets 60 hits from around the world a day and only a few hundred people have seen the films. (btw, when I read the high concept description of Teen Planet, I couldn't help but think of the opening movie in Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri !! I hereby give you permission to use that quote in future blurbs/advertising for that film. You're welcome. ) Bwithh 12:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete As per nom. Marcus22 17:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both. No references are provided to substantiate notability. Rohirok 17:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both per Rohirok. --Guinnog 18:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both Presently not notable. Indicators: Alexa traffic on wolftime.com has no ranking data (as of 09-Sep-2006 22:10 UTC) At the same time, Google returns about thirty links to the phrase "Wolftime Films" which appears to reduce to about four distinct sources, none which furnish independent commentary on notability. (one times out, one returns a 404 error, one is [wolftime.com] itself, one references the phrase "wolftime" in an unrelated context). Gosgood 21:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The last comment was by far the most constructive of them all. Wolftime is going through a major growth period at this time. I will currently agree with the deletion of both articles since Wolftime is presently non-notable. However, I may write up the article again about halfway through the year after film festival season has started and more material verifies the company as worthy of recognition on Wikipedia. I apologize for any trouble I may have caused, and invite you to view the newly released "Silhouettes" here so you can at least get an idea of the work my company does. My apologies, and thanks. Kevinw91
    • Kevin91, you might want to keep a backup of the work you've put in here before it is deleted. In the future, it may be a helpful reference if you're planning to put it up again. Good luck with you and your company. zephyr2k 23:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The awarding bodies were Danville International Children's Film Festival and Berkeley Video and Film Festival. 542 (115) ghits and 381 (172) ghits, respectively. (Cute film, thanks for the link, Kevin.) —BozoTheScary 01:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I have posted references to the project page. It will be apparent that both films, "Teen Planet" and "The Kid Who Talked Too Much" are films of 5 minute length, submitted for competition. Can't vouch for the reknown of the festivals, but it would appear to be amateur (possibly school) projects. Ohconfucius 02:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This lengthy discussion established two things: The nomination is correct, and the page's creator doesn't value our time (or his) very highly. My Alt Account 09:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Foul. Ad hominem and uncalled for. —BozoTheScary 19:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The way this discussion has been conducted is a complete waste of time, I don't see a nicer way to say it. My Alt Account 22:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I did not intend to enter the conversation again, but when a comment comes up that is blatantly ad hominim and inappropriate, I have no choice but to defend myself and my ambition. The comment left by My Alt Account was clearly wrong. If every user has the mentality of this individual, it is very apparent that they do not understand my defense of the article in the first place. The comment has prompted me to change my beliefs to again argue for the inclusion of the Wolftime article. I hope that the final administrator who reads this discussion views it on a deeper level and understands that my efforts are not a folly. The discussion moved from an argument against the inclusion of an article to attacks against my company and myself. I didn't want to cause any more trouble, but the last comment was far from constructive, and has unfortunately prompted me to change my position. By the way, "Teen Planet," "The Kid Who Talked too Much," and "Silhouettes" were not school projects. Again, I apologize for taking your time. Kevinw91 22:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Objection That last comment, which accuses 'X' of an ad hominim (sic. hominem) attack is a clear ad hominem attack and must be struck from the record. If every user has the mentality of this individual then I'm off to make a cup of tea! Marcus22 08:27, 13 September 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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Wolftime_bd17.html"