Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/6 Degrees from Truth

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 was delete. - Bobet 16:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 6 Degrees from Truth

Delete Promotion for forth-coming movie. Written by film-maker. Wikipedia is not a billboard. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. AlistairMcMillan 21:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - when the film is released and successful, it's a valid topic for an entry. Until then, it isn't. BigHaz 22:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Fame (success) is not a determiner of Wikipedia notability. As per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability . It does have importance/impact (it's a 67 minute documentary about a big political figure). --Adamreuter 03:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
True enough that success alone doesn't determine notability. However, simply by being a film about a famous person, a film does not become notable either. Particularly not when the only indication that it exists that anyone's been able to find are 50% from here and MySpace. The reason that my rationale was based on "when the film is released and successful" was because that a release and some kind of independent commentary (a review, even a review saying that it was bad and that everyone walked out) is going to make it notable. Even a release could achieve that same effect. It's not a case of verifiability but one of notability. It's verifiable that I've got a film in mind about all sorts of things, but until one of them gets released it's not going to be here. If Moore's latest film doesn't appear to satisfy the notability requirements, put it up for deletion - the fact that its entry exists isn't necessarily proof that it's notable, and it certainly isn't proof of any partisan bias. BigHaz 05:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
If the 6 Degrees from Truth entry is deleted, so should the article about "Fahrenheit 9/11 1/2". At this point, the reality of that movie is just hearsay. However I can, at this point in time, provide anyone with a finished copy of 6 Degrees from Truth: Michael Moore...the same can't besaid for either of Moore's upcoming films.
As I've said before, if the issue is that *I* wrote the article, there wouldn't be a problem getting a third-party to either verify or rewrite the entry. I just don't believe in hiring/enslaving someone to do something that I can do myself. All of the words I used in the entry are in my view, "neutral." There are no "whiz-bang" public relations words used to describe the film.
The only reason we are having this discussion is because my wallet is not as deep as Moore's and I don't have the connections to Hollywood/the media like he has. But if Wikipedia wants to knock this little man down, by all means. After all, it's their website and their servers. When the film is released, I would like an apology though if this article is deleted. --Adamreuter 21:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not here to correct injustices or to help the "little man" promote himself. We are here to document things that are already famous. Sorry. Gamaliel 18:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comments: Not true. According to Wikipedia notability policies, things that aren't "famous" are allowed to be documented. --Adamreuter 03:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete (Full disclosure: I'm a die-hard, bleeding-heart liberal, but I also really dislike Michael Moore; since he's so pompous and self-serving, I've never even tried to watch any of his films except for Fahrenheit 9/11 and Canadian Bacon, both of which I love.) This film is non-notable, and the article is an advertisement. "6 Degrees from Truth", appropriately, gets a grand total of 6 unique Google hits, and of the 6, 2 are WP and 1 is MySpace. The film might deal with a somewhat controversial topic, but it's an unreleased film with no distribution deal created by a (Wikipedically) unimportant filmmaker violating WP is not a soapbox. -- Kicking222 22:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Google shows this to almost totally unknown outside wikipedia and the film's own website. Directed by an unknown film student. This might become notable after release, but certainly not now. Fan-1967 01:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Fan-1967. Gamaliel 18:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comments: Crystal ball argument: It is verifiable that this documentary will be released. I have offered to send a copy of the film to anyone who requests it. And I also have reliable third-party sources who can verify the existence of this film...as per Wikipedia's rules.
What difference does it make whether the article is published before or after a film's release? If the announcement of my film would appear in "Variety" magazine tomorrow, all that is is a relaying of information. Apparently that's sufficient enough for a WP article.
A lot of films are announced before they're even shot...and then they are canceled. Yet those films are allowed on Wikipedia. This documentary is "in the can" and will be released shortly. What's the point of deleting an article that will be reposted once the film is released to the public? I have yet to be taken up on my offer of an "at-cost" DVD by anyone who objects to this article.
As far as using Wikipedia as a promotional tool...how? This article is not linked from any other WP article...albeit it was at one time. I myself have not linked to it from my own website. You could use the promotional argument for just about any film that has been released or will be released. By the same logic, every single film that hasn't been released yet should be deleted from Wikipedia! Again, the only difference between the announcement of my film and others is that my pockets aren't deep. If they were, I'd buy big advertisements in all major newspapers tomorrow! Then it would "notable", right?
Now if this film were a narrative (fictional in nature), you could argue that it's not notable. However, it discusses a very controversial filmmaker (who is controversial for the revisionist history, distortions, half-truths, etc. he puts in his films/books, not his concrete [i.e. verifiable/factual] points of view) who continues to have a career in filmmaking. And for that matter, the public's ear.
Soapbox argument: According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not , "self-promotion" is allowed as long as a neutral point of view is maintained. I feel that I have kept a neutral point of view. I will re-word the article if specific objections are made. As it stands, the article discusses what is contained in the film and what the series stands for.
Notability argument: Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11 are two of the highest grossing documentary films of all time. My film aims to show the audience scenes from the films IN CONTEXT and then address discrepencies in those scenes. The film is the first feature-length documentary to be released about Moore that will be made entirely free to the public. It is a large resource (4 hours of audio/visual content and text) of information about Michael Moore.
As soon as the newspaper article is ran, 6 Degrees from Truth: Michael Moore will be listed on IMDB. That will meet one of the criterion for verifiability. The article has not been released yet due to space considerations. This is beyond my and the journalist who wrote the article's control. If anyone wants to verify this, I can provide a phone number/email address for the newspaper. I will not, however, post it in this public forum.
At this point, I believe any further argument from myself is futile. I am clearly outnumbered and majority rule in this case will probably win. --Adamreuter 03:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
It seems verifiable. The question is now (and to a greater or lesser extent has always been) one of notability). BigHaz 08:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Many, many student films are verifiable, and listed in IMDB. It doesn't mean they will have any widespread ditribution, or even notice. It is certainly possible that this may receive notice; certainly there are many people who might promote criticisms of Moore. It has not achieved that notice yet. There is always the option of recreating this article when/if such notice occurs. Fan-1967 14:26, 11 August 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.