Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Behind Tinted Glasses

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. - Mailer Diablo 18:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Behind Tinted Glasses

Non-notable, crystal ball, vanity piece. Prod removed by author -- Merope 15:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Hello Merope, I understand you're meaning to delete this page on Behind Tinted Glasses, but please hear me out. I have read your Wikipedia page and I see that you monitor new pages like these. Behind Tinted Glasses is a movie that we used our whole summer doing and used all the resources we could come up with. We renovated out school and covered every inch of ground in out county and more. This page was not to boost our egos at all but to tell the few people that know about this movie what it is truely about. As you can see on the page we spent a lot of time making the page and it wasn't for a mere boost of ego, you have my word. This might not have had a chance to get in in movie search engines or even independent movie search engines, well that's because it is only in post production. As you see in the article, we set our own budgets, which was a lot of money that could have been used elsewhere in this Summer. We are extremely dedicated independent film directors and do way more than just home movies. We make films and we are debating holding a community gathering for the film later this year. This film might not be large yet, but it is only a beginning to our filming company, Plastic Swords Production. We are trying to get that legalized at the moment. So I really plea to you that you allow this article to stay. It is not close to being finished and will be worked hard on for the next few days. We were meaning to put a whole lot more content on there, but it was just made last night. We are 15 and 16 year old dedicated film makers.

Yours Truely,

Nathan Couch

Comment. Hi, Nathan. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not a free web-hosting site. I understand and appreciate that a great deal of time, effort, and financial resources went into making this film; however, Wikipedia is not the appropriate place to advertise your movie. -- Merope 15:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment How long before this is deleted? We would still work as hard as possible around the clock to make it a suitable and professional looking article and correct grammar mistakes and everything that goes along with a wikipedia article. Wouldn't it be suitable if we made an article about our filming company? We are not advertising at all. I've been on wiki for 3 years now and have seen indie films and companies. I am not here to argue at all, please don't get me wrong. I would so appreciate it if it would be allowed a bit more time to be polished. Yours Truely, Nathan Couch
Comment. Unfortunately, it is not the quality of the article that is at stake--if it were a case of that, I would help. The problem is that the subject of the article fails WP's policies concerning vanity articles, advertising, and, sadly, notability. Once your film is finished and you do send it to Sundance (and it receives recognition), then perhaps the article can be recreated. As it stands, there isn't anything (in my opinion) that you could add to it to change the outcome of the vote. -- Merope 16:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
For starter's review the criteria at WP:V and WP:OR for some idea of the kind of changes needed if the article were to be kept (and I'm not sure it'd be possible) WilyD 16:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per WilyD's comments and Merope's as well...dang you! You beat me to the punch in stating those! *chuckle* I think this also may fail the school day policy. I also added 'comment' tags to Nathen's statements --Bschott 16:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Thanks for all of your help, really. I understand all of your decisions to make this article deleted. But if this had one public appearence and was recognized (not on the web but in the city) could it have a shot on wikipedia? So how long until this long piece of work gets trashed? I read the articles briefly... so there's not a shot of keeping it? So I should just quit adding?
Well, deletions usually take place within in a week. Some independant media coverage could bring it up past WP:V which is really the penultimate criterion for inclusion. Being presented at some notable festival or something could definitely do it. WilyD 16:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Thanks for all of your help. I guess as long as it's there I'll just add to it. If it gets deleted, it gets deleted. We'll just have to wait until it is past post production and it gets bigger.

Your Truely,

Nathan Couch

  • Delete - if it makes an apperance at Sundance, then perhaps it can be recreated. -- Whpq 17:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and userfy the article. Themindset 17:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, and userify per Themindset Yomangani 17:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I am the writer of the film Behind Tinted Glasses, and if the best web encyclopedia is what you are looking for, I don't understand why you wouldn't be able to include a wider variety of articles, including some that may not be as well-known as others. The Plastic Swords Team has been preparing to make the film for a great deal of time now, and I think it's even more impressive that we are just 15 and 16 year olds. We did, indeed, gain access to film inside a local high school and filmed for probably over 80 hours, which will all boil down to about an hour long movie. The article was made to inform people about the movie and the struggle to make it. At the moment, we aren't at the point yet where we can make a trailer, because I do want to be finished with the post-production process before I create one. I can tell you that I plan on making a trailer, so if I do so, is there still a shot, like we were told, about recreating the article? Thanks.
  • Snowy Speedy Delete per above Non-notable, WP:VAIN. Note that your project is a labour of love, and we don't mean to demean it, but Wiki is not a soapbox. all the criteria are fulfilled for its deletion and none apply to keeping it Ohconfucius 03:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
With a {{prod}} tag having been removed, the article is definitely not covered by WP:SNOW WilyD 11:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Having taken active participation in the creation of this movie, I, of course, have to side against the Wiki Overlords. As you can tell by the previous comments of my fellow film makers, we have put a lot of time and effort into this movie (as well as a lot of money!), a feat that, in my opinion, is multiplied many times over due to our young ages. We are not inherently using this wiki as a form of advertisement (though we admit that some degree of it may come from the article being read). If we were, we would be throwing the link to this wiki all over the place, yelling at the top of our (textual) lungs "Look at us! We have our own Wiki Article!" Obviously, we haven't. It may seem a little ambitious for a bunch for three teenagers, but we really are proud of the effort put into this film and feel that we can take it places instead of shelving it as just a fun summer project. We may not be known, and it is true; any potential fame brought to us in the future is unknown. I suppose that all I really can contribute to this argument is a pseudo-plea for pity. I don't suppose you'd be willing to hold out and wait for the trailer, do you? If so, maybe then you can decide whether or not we're worthy of an article here on WP.
Your goals are admirable, but unfortunately you've come to the wrong place. Wikipedia is not what's you're looking for, however. Sorry about that. WilyD 11:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn film, vanity, we are not discouraging your efforts, but to adhere with Wikipedia's policy, this has to go. --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 07:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment / Quotes / In Our Defense

Found on WP:VAIN

"It is believed that the majority of vanity article creators forget about their vanity articles and do not revisit at all; this is evident in that they rarely defend the article during the deletion debate."

I think we all know by now we are not just "passer-byers" that will post a small snippet of our work and move on hoping that we get discovered by an indie film producer.

"Lack of fame is not the same as vanity."

"Furthermore, an article is not "vanity" simply because it was written by its subject; indeed, it can also be vanity if written by a fan, or close relationship."

Isn't this the problem?

"If they are encyclopedic, somebody else will notice them and write an article about them" but then it also says "Lack of fame is not the same as vanity"... So my misunderstanding here is: How could any independent movie company write about themselves if they are not that well known... because it says "lack of fame isn't the same as vanity" and isn't that why were are getting deleted... because of a not known film?

Vanity edits: examples I've taken a look at that category and we are not breaking any of those rules simply because we are promoting nothing.

"The most significant problem with vanity articles is that they often discuss subjects that are not well-enough known for there to be multiple editors"

I can name multiple editors, locally, that come upon wiki everyday that know of this film that could and would edit the page. A great deal more than twenty.

From WP:NFT

I am insulted that you would take the article as a "school day policy"... not by the name but by what I have read. This article was NOT yo create for "new lingo" we could show our fellow classmates at school. We have webhosting, and we weren't planning on using this as webhosting. As a creator of a site I do take band-width into consideration, but this article was not going to be used just "for our own purposes". It just seemed the whole school day policy didn't apply to this situation at all... excuse me if I am wrong.

From WP:SPAM

I am sorry, but I have read every inch of that page and can not find one thing we could get accused for. We are not spam bots, we're not votestacking, I think it's clear by now we are not campaigning, and we are not canvasing.

From WP:V and WP:OR

You are correct. I do believe that is what the world needs these days is verification. We do not have Behind Tinted Glasses in an original search, and we do not have Behind Tinted Glasses verified as a movie at all besides the author's words which we are giving you. (if that means anything at all) But doesn't this all go back to "There is currently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required to justify a unique article being created in Wikipedia" found WP:VAIN

From Wikipedia:Snowball_clause

"The policy also states that "[a]ny substantial debate" is a good reason not to close early."

"Allowing a process to continue to its conclusion allows for a more reasoned discourse, ensures that arguments are fully examined, and maintains the appearance of fairness."

I really do appreciate all of you moderators who have left this discussion open, and those who have had open ears. I, Nathan, am not here to argue by any means, but just try to understand the rules thouroughly because at this point, the only thing that, I can see, is against us is a not known film. But the rules state the article does not need to have a famous-based article. So having that said, if you could clear up the rules we are specifically breaking, and just allow us this 30k space, it would be so much appreciated since the article has been worked on hard.

So with all the reasons and rules out why we don't want a wiki page (like egos and such), some might be thinking, "Why do they want one?" Without heroic theme music or cheesy catch lines, we belive that people should hear the story of three film makers going through anything and everything to get their film made and I believe that's what people really want to hear these days, a good story. A good, true, story.

-Nathan Couch

    • Comment: Why don't you guys just copy this article to a website, and register a domain like BehindTintedGlasses.com and put it all there? Wouldn't it accomplish exactly the same thing? Why is it so important that it is hosted here, on Wikipedia? Themindset 04:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Hello Themindset,

Thanks for the suggestion, but why wouldn't any article on wiki have a website? We are in the process of getting a website at the moment but we feel it is more convenient to host an article on wiki for several reasons as followed:

  • It is more convenient to link article to article (like we linked REM; we would not like to explain what REM is so we link article-to-article)
  • Wiki is easy to use (not easy to advertise). We do not want it to advertise, but just be able to utilize all the features that come along with an article such as contents that are made as you make your article
  • We feel like we deserve a wikipedia article just as much as anyone else does. Why don't we?

Thanks for everyone's listening.

-Nathan Couch

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.