Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democrazy (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, the keep arguments are not convincing. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Democrazy (film)

Democrazy (film) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This is a no-budget straight-to-video B movie (actually not even that, B movies were actually shown in movie theatres, this never has been as far as we can tell) written, produced, directed and acted by Michael Legge, whose notability seems not to spread much beyond his immediate circle despite prolific and protracted attempts to boost his profile through Wikipedia. This article asserts that it won a B Movie Festival awar. Maybe it did, but there is no evidence this is considered significant. The sources cited are trivial, and not provably independent. At least one takes its text from IMDB, which is, of course, user edited (and indie films are usually added by their producers). It was previously deleted by Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Democrazy, which was created by Legge's fans before the film was even released. The primary notability criterion is: A topic is notable if it has been the subject of non-trivial coverage by two or more published works. Such sources should be reliable and independent of the subject. I see no evidence that this film has been the primary subject of any such non-trivial independent sources. There are notably bad films, often made by Ed Wood. There are (subjectively) bad notable films, <cough>Waterworld</cough>. This does not appear to be either. Guy (Help!) 16:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Redirect Strictly of course based on the fact that the film doesn't yet have enough notability sources. From Googling things like Democrazy Legge film -Albarn -wikipedia (dropping Damon Albarn who seems to have an album of the same name), I can't see the notability yet. Maybe in time... redirect to the Michael Legge article for this. No harm in his films that don't pass notability on their own for an article to not redirect back to him, as he does pass notability, and people could likely search for those terms/films. - Denny (talk) 16:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    • That's a whole other can of worms. His Sideshow Cinema article is a gathering-ground for deleted non-notable actors, a one-article end-run round dozens of deletions. Guy (Help!) 16:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
      • What is the official policy on redirecting marginally notable, possibly searched-for things like this? Please let me know what policy controls this? Thanks! - Denny (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I can't see any possible reason for a redirect from a disambiguated title. —Cryptic 16:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
      • People may search for the film title. - Denny (talk) 16:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
        • The existence of this article, and presumeably a redirect from it, won't help searching anyway. Go ahead, try it. Though there might be an argument for a dablink from Democrazy. (This article is about the actually-sort-of-notable album. For the direct-to-video zero-budget film Democrazy, see Michael Legge.)... —Cryptic 17:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The speculation concerning a conspiracy to keep the article can be ignored as irrelevant to this AfD. The article gives grounds for significance (an award), and I can see no good grounds for deleting it. The further demand that the article give grounds for the significance of the award is unprecedented, so far as I'm aware. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • That only works if the award is in some way significant. Apparently Fairy dishwasher liquid was awarded "dishwasher product of the year" - does that in and of itself make the product notable? Guy (Help!) 21:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • If true, yes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of who gave the award or whether the award is notable? --Minderbinder 21:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. There is no evidence that the award is worth anything; he mailed a copy of his movie in with $40.00 and got an award. Its not of the same meaning as the Sundance Film Festival. Badlydrawnjeff, you haven't given any proof for your claims. Arbustoo 16:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral for now. Article is certainly a subpage of the works of Legge, and notability is clearly established by winning awards, which is typically enough. I struggle if we can't find anything, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Almost total lack of reliable, independent sources. The only possible argument for notability is an award from B-Movie Film Festival, which barely squeaks past our article inclusion standards itself. (Consult its Google results, for example.) —Cryptic 17:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per User talk:Mel Etitis. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't see any arguments for keep on that page. Perhaps you could be more specific. Guy (Help!) 21:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Nothing's changed since the original deletion, as it's still a minor film -- essentially home movie -- and recreating it without benefit of review by those other than its original creators is a bad idea, whatever handwaving Mel Etitis does about it being "successfully argued for" when he undeleted it. And as for The speculation concerning a conspiracy to keep the article can be ignored as irrelevant to this AfD -- deliberately and misdirecting pejorative language aside, nooo, it's exactly relevant, as it's part of a years-long pattern of one or two editors to use Wikipedia to promote the noncareers of a couple of aggressive non-notable actors/filmmakers and their friends, including insertion of the principals and their images into other barely related or unrelated articles. This is merely another brick in the wall of an extensive walled garden. I was hoping to have the time to gather all the metastasized portions up into one big nomination, but if piecemeal is what it takes, it's a good start. --Calton | Talk 22:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    First, it simply doesn't meet the speedy deletion criterion: it makes a claim to significance. Secondly, you seem to have misunderstood my comments, but let that pass. Thirdly, your sarcasm and aggression here sit uneasily with your finger-wagging over the "pejorative tone" of my comment. I'm doing what we're all supposed to do: treating each article on its own merits. Many of the articles to which you refer I either had nothing to do with or argued against; I think that this one meets the criteria. I'm neither part of the cabal of walled-gardeners nor part of the self-appointed task force of garden destroyers; I'm neither committed to rescuing all the articles nor to destroying them root and branch (though I realise that the mentality of such groups means that I'm bound to be lumped in with the "enemy"). I hold both approaches to be anti-Wikipedia. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
First, what part of my {{db-repost}} tag was unclear? I even included the LINK TO THE AFD in the edit summary: yeah, it fails the "makes no claim to significance" portion, but perhaps you missed that there are other criteria for CSD? Second, I think I understood your comments enough to know that your phrase "successfully argued for" seems to be essentially meaningless, but perhaps there are subtleties that I'm missing. Certainly I understand the meta-message of language like "conspiracy theory" -- and I'm sure you do, too. Third, your threats to block anyone disagreeing with your wheel-warring makes you an odd choice for a complainant about aggression, not to mention a wee bit hypocritical to complain about sarcasm given the characterization of other comments as being "conspiracy theories". Fourth, treating the articles on their merits means examining them in toto and their apparent reasons for existence, given their linkages -- which makes no difference, really, since even examined individually they're failures due to being un- or badly sourced advertising-like and vanity treatments of unnotable personalities and their works. I've certainly never suggested you were the "enemy" -- God knows WHAT made you bring THAT up -- but now that you mention it you seem to be making some kind of point about God-knows-what principle at the expense of actual encyclopedic standards and purposes. --Calton | Talk 16:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't demonstrate notability, lack of non-trivial sources. --Minderbinder 13:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep I've improved the B-Movie Film Festival article a fair bit. Michael Legge has won 3 awards there, but it's not quite a "walled garden", other winners include Rhonda Shear, Billy Zane, and Thomas Edward Seymour, people appearing at the awards include Debbie Rochon and Michael Berryman... it's a niche genre, no one involved would even object to having it be called a cult genre, but it is notable. Winning an award there is certainly an assertion of notability, we were able to convince Tregoweth to un-speedy-delete it based on that. Is it sufficient for inclusion? I tend to think yes, but then that's what we're here for. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    • No, actually it won one award, but was nominated for three. Again, what's the significance. According to its website, currently the festival is hosting Syracuse Teen Idol for $5 a ticket, and anyone can submit their films as long as they pay $30-40.00. Arbustoo 01:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The award has borderline notability (I'm inclinded to see it as not notable) and we have no useful non-trivial reliable sources to write about this film. If non-trivial, indpendent reliable sources show up I'll be happy to change my mind then. JoshuaZ 16:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete There is no notability. Unless WP:RS appear and demonstrate importance, delete. Also how is the film maker notable? He won some award for a B movie a few years ago? That doesn't quite cut it for WP:BIO. Arbustoo 07:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Legge and his films are written about in books, all over the internet, and have been shown in many many film festivals. "Hate campaign" is not a strong enough a description for Guy and the gang "obsession" might be closer to the mark. Plank 17:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Plank has editted on the articles in question before as early as 2004.[1] Since registering he is a non-regular contributor with interest in the articles that surround Michael Legge's "movies"/cast. Arbustoo 17:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
    • If this is the case then it should be easy to provide a reliable, secondary source for even a single one of your articles, something which despite being posted and reposted on Wikipedia for 'years has never been done. —Cryptic 17:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Plank's edit history shows very little activity outside the promotion of Legge's work. The assertion that these films are written about "all over the internet" may be true, but it seems to be Plank and Pitchka (now renamed) who are doing the writing. And actually this [2] suggests that "all over the internet" is something of an overstatement: around 300 unique Googles, including Wikipedia. Add to that two previous deletions and a clearly out-process re-creation by Mel Etitis, who is just about the only editor on this article who is not a Legge SPA. I think we are being had. Guy (Help!) 17:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per AnonEMouse. --JJay 18:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
    • As I corrected AnonEMouse who had a WEAK vote and misread part of the article, please tell us the what winning that award means. According to its website, currently the festival is hosting Syracuse Teen Idol for $5 a ticket, and anyone can submit their films as long as they pay $30-40.00. What's its signifiance to the world of B Movies?Arbustoo 01:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete If this is a notable film, I don't see why a review from an independent publication can't be linked or referenced in my mind winning an award at a board line film festival does not establish notability. --Daniel J. Leivick 20:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The filmmaker and his other movies are up for afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Legge (filmmaker) (third nomination). Arbustoo 23:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Despite all of the passionate arguments above, the simple fact is that the film is not notable enough to meet our guidelines. If it was there would be lots of non-trivial coverage, and there isn't. A1octopus 11:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The only claim to notability was the award, and now it appears the notability of that is questionable as well. Doesn't meet notability for inclusion. --Minderbinder 16:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete per ... there doesn't seem to be anything written about this film. "Weak" due to the fact that it won an award of unknown significance. -- Black Falcon 23:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete failed to provide any backing of notability twice in the past. This is already a valid Speedy G4 deletion. Still fails to adequately provide any proof this article passes any criteria for inclusion. Every single actor involved in this movie fails WP:BIO and should be deleted as well. Hell I've got a bigger movie profile than most of these actors... and I was only an extra in Empire Falls!  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:16, 18 April 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.