Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coven (short film)
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. There aren't enough reliable sources about the film itself, and all sources only briefly mention this film – for example, it's listed on a film festival's site along with all other films submitted and nominated for awards (this film didn't win an award but was nominated for some). If it becomes notable, the article can be recreated at that time, but it falls short for now. KrakatoaKatie 10:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Coven (short film)
Non-notable student film, prod removed without comment. Has won one, non-prestigious award. On the surface appears to have been edited by numerous people but almost every edit is by sock puppeteer Tweety21 (currently blocked) or one of her many anonIPs. Precious Roy 17:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- note: Please ignore the inflammatory comments by Gayunicorn. It's another of Tweety21's socks. I've moved them below the discussion so as to not distract from the matter at hand. Precious Roy 01:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable.--Gp75motorsports 18:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep It's got a little bit of media coverage, so I think it's worth keeping around. The threshold for notability for something like this is fairly low, in my opinion, and an independent review in a reasonably good media organ qualifies. I don't see any compelling reason to delete. Orpheus 23:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep: Numerous sources verify that it is a recipient of a notable award and that the film has merit; per WP:NF: "The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking." Furthermore, there is no established, official religion of the nation, whether it is Wicca or Christianity. The comments border on hypocrisy. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The award is not "major" it's from a small festival, and three other films won the same award. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Precious Roy (talk • contribs)
- Delete as nominated. I am confused, why is Tweety21's sock puppet arguing for deletion of an article they created? --Agamemnon2 06:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- She does a lot of things that don't make sense. My guess is she just wants to disrupt the process. Precious Roy 14:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong KeepWiccawikka 15:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC) I usually don't get involved in these kinds of forums, but I actually checked this movie out and read up the reviews in what appears to be credible sources. Comments by "gayunicorn", and "Precous Roy" aside I hope there really is not religious hate issues going on here, as this film does not appear to be promoting Wicca or anything else, but retelling a childrens story. (please no hate mail) I also noticed this film listed in Leelee Sobieski' wiki entry as well. (there seems to be a dispute of a personal and immature nature going on here that I hope other wikis ignore these two users. Another note of education Wicca is a peaceful relgion which states "harm none",) Wiccawikka 15:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC) — Wiccawikka (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- comment a number of the below comments seem abusive, I hope the closing administration will be mature in ignoring the comments of the two members who seem to be carrying childish behavior ( I checked out both profile and both seem to be in constant heated exchanges with other wiccians, and also spend a ridiculous amount of time on wiki..do these people have jobs or lives? ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiccawikka (talk • contribs) 15:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep appears to (just barely) meet standards for notability. Dlabtot 16:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Which standards does it meet, specifically? (see WP:ATA). Precious Roy 17:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Dlabtot. Seems to have outside coverage, even if it is minimal. --Cheeser1 17:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Minimal outside coverage is not one of the criteria listed at WP:MOVIE. Precious Roy 17:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Minimal meaning minimal to pass notability requirements. Obviously. WP:MOVIE states Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release. While this film is not yet old enough to have 5-year-old sources, it still has two of them (per WP:N, from which WP:MOVIE is derived), and the timeframe issue is mitigated by several awards (criterion 3), the involvement of a relative famous actress, and the fact that it's a short film, not a feature-length one. Also, keep in mind that you need not badger every person who "votes" differently than you. --Cheeser1 18:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- He is entitled to make counter-arguments. This is a discussion, not a poll. Epbr123 18:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- It is a discussion, not a talk page, and even in talk pages, it's not really appropriate to go out of one's way to respond to virtually everyone who disagrees with you (especially with a simple reiteration of or elaboration on a point of disagreement - the closing admin will see his comments, he need not repeat them). --Cheeser1 18:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- 1) The movie hasn't won "several awards" it won one minor award at a minor film festival, where three other films got the exact same award (not too prestigious if you ask me). 2) asking someone to clarify a position, or pointing out a fallacy in their argument is not "badgering" 3) I haven't questioned the arguments of "every person" with a differing opinion. Precious Roy 19:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- He is entitled to make counter-arguments. This is a discussion, not a poll. Epbr123 18:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Minimal meaning minimal to pass notability requirements. Obviously. WP:MOVIE states Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release. While this film is not yet old enough to have 5-year-old sources, it still has two of them (per WP:N, from which WP:MOVIE is derived), and the timeframe issue is mitigated by several awards (criterion 3), the involvement of a relative famous actress, and the fact that it's a short film, not a feature-length one. Also, keep in mind that you need not badger every person who "votes" differently than you. --Cheeser1 18:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Minimal outside coverage is not one of the criteria listed at WP:MOVIE. Precious Roy 17:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Epbr123 17:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I just noticed in WP:FILM: films produced in the past, which were either not completed or not distributed, should not have their own articles where "distributed" is not the same thing as showing at a film festival, would most likely apply here as well. Precious Roy 19:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm relatively sure that means further into the past. It's also important to remember that short films, even highly notable ones are not always "released" in any sort of theatrical or television setting. --Cheeser1 21:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- I do realize that shorts do not get the same kind of distribution as features. Rejected is kind of a poor example though, seeing how it was shown over and over across the country by Spike and Mike. As far as I can tell, Coven showed at some film festivals (as few as two) and that's it. Precious Roy 01:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- My point is simply that WP:MOVIE is a general extension of WP:N to the category of films. It's slanted towards feature-length films, and is fairly vague (as are most policies) to allow for some interpretation and/or wiggle room (in the spirit perhaps of WP:IGNORE). It does have two outside sources, and it does have some sort of recognition. --Cheeser1 07:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- I realize this is getting close to badgering but: both of the outside sources (I assume you're referring to the Observer and Paper articles) are about the director of the film (a socialite whose WP article (created by Tweety21) has been deleted via AfD twice now (here and here—note my involvement in the second one, and my "keep" !vote)). The Observer article barely mentions the movie and the Paper article contains three sentences about it (and one more later in the article about how she'd like to turn it into a full-length)—these are not "non-trivial" references. Precious Roy 10:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- My point is simply that WP:MOVIE is a general extension of WP:N to the category of films. It's slanted towards feature-length films, and is fairly vague (as are most policies) to allow for some interpretation and/or wiggle room (in the spirit perhaps of WP:IGNORE). It does have two outside sources, and it does have some sort of recognition. --Cheeser1 07:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- I do realize that shorts do not get the same kind of distribution as features. Rejected is kind of a poor example though, seeing how it was shown over and over across the country by Spike and Mike. As far as I can tell, Coven showed at some film festivals (as few as two) and that's it. Precious Roy 01:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm relatively sure that means further into the past. It's also important to remember that short films, even highly notable ones are not always "released" in any sort of theatrical or television setting. --Cheeser1 21:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Disruptive comments by Tweety21's sockpuppet
- Delete Gayunicorn 23:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC) THIS APPEARS TO BE A GLORIFICATION OF WICCA!!!! Although I am not against various religions, Christianity is the main stream religion in North American!! Also upon watching the movie this is PAGONISTIC!!! please for the love of God delete this entry!!!Gayunicorn 23:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC) — Gayunicorn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Gayunicorn, your comments are offensive. I request that you redact them. Corvus cornix 23:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- This comment isn't really valid: the neutral point of view policy demands that we not discriminate against "paganistic" religions or, equivalently, favour Christianity. I recommend it be disregarded. Nihiltres(t.l) 01:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- commentGayunicorn 23:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Re: comments put on my talk, I have absolutly no problems with other religions, whatever people do in the privacy of their own homes is their own busines, but we shouldnt be condoning it with movies. Should not have put up article in the first place.Gayunicorn 00:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- The media should reflect mainstream and recognized religions, not fringe ones that are not organized or cults! also should not promote films with nudity. Gayunicorn 23:56, 27 September 2007 (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.
