Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/From Within (film)

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 Keep--JForget 23:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] From Within (film)

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

Speculative article about a film. One source has now been removed as the film makers have emailed us to say it is highly inaccurate. Not a surprise: this article is essentially speculative, the film is apparently only just into post-production and nothing reliable has been published yet. This article should be removed until the film is released, at which point we should have some idea of whether it is actually notable. The article on the director does not suggest that notability will be inherited from his involvement. Guy (Help!) 12:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I've restored the Variety citation that you blanked on the unverifiable reasoning that the "filmmakers" deem it inaccurate. The information in the article comes from two published sources -- a trade paper and a daily newspaper. As for ShockTillYouDrop.com, the information comes from an interview with the screenwriter, so I don't believe that would be disputable. I would also like to say that IMDb is not at all reliable for upcoming films -- considering that the information is user-submitted and there has been inaccuracies with films' entries, especially for the credits of upcoming films. For instance, for Spider-Man 3, the role "Aunt May / Carnage" was added. Also, Ed Norton was added to show in an episode of 24 as "John Bauer". (Both items and more are untrue.) Furthermore, Phedon Papamichael is a notable cinematographer with From Within being his directorial debut, so I'm not sure why such a project by one of Hollywood's better-knowns would have its notability questioned. If something is wrong with the information, then it should be disputed with reliable sources, not what an editor says. I will likely move to keep, but I would like to hear responses to my points. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• A note to the closing admin -- I'd like the article to be userfied to my userspace if the consensus is to delete the article. I will recreate the article at a later date if notability is no longer an issue. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and recreate when the film's out and there is more substantive and accurate information both to the film and to its notability. ---- WebHamster 15:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Eusebeus 19:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Erik; sources and notability seem likely and so why delete an article now that even the above users suggest could/should be recreated anyway in the future? Might as well just keep it and continue to develop it instead of starting over from scratch. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. What's the problem? There is information here about an upcoming film, which some people may find useful and/or interesting, and which has minor notability by dint of its mention in the cited publications. Any problems wrt specific information within the article which may be erroneous is an entirely different issue, and debate on these will be made, I'm sure, entirely welcome. Best regards, Liquidfinale 23:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep because per notability guidelines for films, the production is notable, drawing significant coverage from the Baltimore Sun, which even has pictures from filming on its site (see External links). Furthermore, the film's cast and crew consist of people who have been involved in major productions (such as director Phedon Papamichael being the cinematographer for 3:10 to Yuma), so this film is not under the radar. Lastly, per WP:CRYSTAL, this event is "almost" certain to take place, considering that production went underway, unlike multiple announced projects that languish in development hell. WP:CRYSTAL states that verifiable coverage of such upcoming events is acceptable. There is a content dispute with certain elements of the article, but this does not warrant its deletion, but rather discussion. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's truly disturbing that a nominator would delete a reference from a clearly reliable source based on an entirely unsupported claim that the film makers claim portions of the article are inaccurate. Wikipedia policy clearly accepts articles such as this one for films that are actively in the works as specified by WP:NF, and it is astounding that an admin would push his POV on the subject in the face of such a clear policy that contradicts the basis of this AfD. The reliable and verifiable sources provided clearly satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn 20:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. JzG is right, OTRS ticket #2007082310002169 was from someone connected to the show. They told us that the magazine referenced is outdated and incorrect (ie: Jake Weber is not in the film), and yet editors do not accept this. As the article is largely speculative, I would agree that for now, deletion is the best course of action. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Personally if I had to choose between trusting the word of a magazine or website versus the word of the filmmaker my money's on the filmmaker. Especially about something as objective as who is actually in the film. If the outside source is getting that wrong then it's fair to assume that they are getting other details wrong too. That means the article is at best inaccurate, at worst totally wrong :). Either way not the makings of a suitable encyclopaedic article. ---- WebHamster 14:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Can you elaborate on the OTRS policy? I'm not understanding how it applies here and how it can be certain that the message is from the filmmakers themselves. In addition, WP:OTRS states that "Such edits usually involve the removal of vandalism or unsourced derogatory assertions. Less frequently, OTRS volunteers handle copyright infringement complaints using one of the standard processes, or delete personal information from article histories." What's being removed is the involvement of an actor with the film and the standard premise of the film -- neither of which seems to warrant invoking OTRS. Furthermore, even if the information is considered wrong, it still passes notability for reasons explained above -- significant coverage by reliable sources and by proximity of notable cast/crew members. Considering that this film is going to come out, supposedly accurate information will come to light, and the article can update accordingly. There's no need to vanquish this subject from the mainspace, even temporarily. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• In my view deleting an inaccurate article then recreating it later with accurate information is far the better option, certainly from a WP repution standpoint. There are enough articles with bad info without adding one more. What's the rush about getting the article done right now? What's wrong with waiting until correct and verifiable info is available? WP isn't a promotional platform where it just has to get the news out right now. It's an encyclopaedia, this is a place where there is informative and correct information available. If you want to see speculative (and mostly inaccurate) rumours about a film try one of the many websites on the net. ---- WebHamster 15:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• We're in a classic baby and the bathwater situation. The film has clearly been shot and clearly meets all of the requirements of notability established by WP:NF. No doubt about it. We now have a deus ex machina descending from the heavens telling us that the sum total of the issue is that an actor is not in the film after all. We seem to have two choices: 1) State that "Early reports were that Jake Weber would be in the film, but the filmmakers have confirmed that this is not the case.", or 2) delete the article. Wikipedia policy recognizes that information about unreleased films is inherently speculative and allows for exactly these scenarios to occur. Details regarding cast, scenes, budgets and other essential information are all uncertain until the film has been released. The nominator ignores all of these aspects of Wikipedia policy, and does an end-around by claiming that one incorrect fact taints the whole article and requires its deletion. It just doesn't work that way. Given that the filmmakers have been granted absolute authority as a source, why not add option 3) ask the filmmakers for complete details regarding the film and include it in the article. The only option that violates Wikipedia policy is deleting the article. Alansohn 15:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Wikipedia has a lot of shoddy articles over even the most notable topics, but we're not deleting them to maintain our so-called reputation. I seriously doubt that there'd be many articles left if we deleted the ones that failed to be completely accurate. If it is necessary to comply with the OTRS statement, then the synopsis and the cast member can be removed. That still leaves other relevant information, such as the cast members and the screenwriter's perspective and the location of the filming. This is a clean-up issue, not a deletion issue. Like it's been said, the film's received significant coverage, and the director of the film is notable as a cinematographer. This film is apparently in post-production, so it's "almost" certain for it to come out, and the article can be expanded with more accurate information. In addition, I don't see how this article is promotional -- it reports on what's happened in production, and none of the wording implies that the film must be seen. This article, like all others on Wikipedia, goes through a dynamic process of improvement. Articles on future films can be informative -- see items like The Dark Knight (film) and Watchmen (film). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• I still haven't seen any reason given why the article has to exist right now. Personally I'm not asking for an outright deletion, just a removal of the article until such time as factually correct information is available. What is the desperate urgency that requires the article exist right at this moment in time? There certainly is none from a Wikipedia standpoint. The only reason I can see is that it adds to the promotion of the movie (and no I'm not saying there are any vested interests in here beyond fan interest). So can anyone tell me what harm there is in a couple of month hiatus whilst speculation is turned into facts? ---- WebHamster 16:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• The article has every reason to exist from a Wikipedia standpoint -- there is verifiable coverage (though not wholly) of this upcoming event per WP:CRYSTAL, and the film meets WP:NOTE standards. Aside from dispute about certain bits of the article, I don't see why the article can't exist. "Promotional" is a bad term -- nobody's forcing anyone to read this article. If readers want to know about a film called From Within, they can find the article and see what information there has been about the film. Discussion can take place on the accuracy of certain bits if necessary. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Why are you avoiding the simple question? If it's recreated later then the readers will be able to read about it. Why must it be NOW?. A simple answer may be best. BTW "promotion" does not mean forcing something on someone. ---- WebHamster 18:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• A clear, compelling case has been made that this article meets the Wikipedia:Notability standard based on the relevant standard WP:NF. Other than the destructive choice of deleting the article, the suggestions to note the fact that one actor listed in the osurce will not be in the picture and to inlcude detailed information from the filmmakers have been ignored. Either (or both) would address the issue raised by the nominator and provide encyclopedic information to readers. Deleteon should be reserved for clear violations of policy, when all reasonable alternatives for correcting the problem have been addressed and exhausted, not used as a first choice one-size-fits-all solution to any issues regarding an article. Why are you avoiding the simple solution of fixing the problem? Alansohn 18:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• What's so complicated about recreating it when the facts are known, and the article can be accurate? Sounds a very simple answer to me. You'll have the article and WP will have the facts. Win Win it seems to me. ---- WebHamster 18:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Deleting an article with any useful content is never a win situation, let alone two of them. What's so complicated about noting the cast change and adding any additional information from the filmmakers? Why not fix the problem and avoid consideration of deletion except as a last resort? Why not create a tag that states "this article is for an unreleased film that has already started shooting. Information included for cast, scenes, budget, filming locations and other important information may change before the film is completed and released", which explains the situation to anyone who can read the current article? Why not recognize that the article meets the WP:NF notability standard, which recognizes that such details may change before the film is released? Why not ignore the article for six months and allow those who want to get information about the film to have a source here on Wikipedia? Alansohn 19:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Indeed; the page already includes the future film tag, which places the following at the top of the article:

  "This article or section contains information about one or more scheduled or expected films. The content may change as the film's release approaches and more information becomes available."

  In addition, a film does not need to be on release for its entry to contain information some people may find interesting and/or useful. This is surely what Wikipedia is here for, and the article, even if barely more than a stub at present, already contains more, or different, information than one would find at its IMDB entry. Let's sort out the problems with it, rather than delete it. If we take the logic that a communique from the filmmakers is enough to prompt its deletion, then it should therefore be enough to correct any mistakes contained therein. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç)} 20:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Au contraire. I thought Wikipedia was here to be an accurate encyclopaedia and not a mirror for the IMDb or "Ain't It Cool News". ---- WebHamster 20:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Heh. My wording isn't sufficient to get across what I mean sometimes. But simply put, the article contains information, which is certainly what an encyclopedia is supposed to be for (and yes, there may well be accuracy problems with the article which should be addressed), and it contains some info (though sparse at present) which isn't contained at the aforementioned sites, and isn't mere promotional material. But even if it didn't, and accuracy notwithstanding, by that logic, surely all articles on Wikipedia are mirrors or amalgams of other sites; no original research, remember. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç)} 20:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• All well and good, but it still doesn't explain why the article just positively, absolutely, has to exist right at this very second? When in a short while the problems with accuracy and speculation will have gone away. It's not as if WP is the first port of call for a film fan to come to find out about a film, at least it isn't in my experience, and even if he/she does what harm is it going to do for them to not find it and for them to immediately go to IMDb (which is actually a more appropriate site anyway). It's not as if WP is going to lose advertising pop-up revenue is it? I still don't see the logic of an article, any article, existing with speculation and inaccurate data, when all it takes is to (re)create it at the appropriate time. It just doesn't make any sense to me. I can understand it if there was money in the equation somewhere, but there isn't. In my view bad data is far worse than no data. ---- WebHamster 20:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• No article whatsoever meets the "just positively, absolutely, has to exist right at this very second" standard, nor is it Wikipedia policy. It couldn't be stated any more clearly, in the first sentence of the Wikipedia:Verifiability official policy, that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." The article meets all of the relevant standards for inclusion, and any issue here can be remedied quite simply using information from the unimpeachable source that has requested the change. Without a policy justification for deletion, all we have is WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and you are free to ignore this article until meets your own personal standards. Alansohn 20:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• (Weak) Delete, without prejudice should the article be recreated. There's an OTRS Ticket that says the Variety source is flawed, so - for argument's sake - let's remove it. That source accounts for fully half the citations in this article. When everything from the Variety source is removed, as it must be, the remainder is not really sufficient for an article. I might even go see it when it comes out, as it looks like a solid film on paper - but it's too soon for an article, given the low level of coverage to date. Best, ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC) (Struck per below)ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Also - The Closing Admin may wish to relist this article, given that the discussion died down 7 days ago (!) - but there seems to have been quite a lively debate with several individuals involved, so consensus may be served. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• If we're in contact with the filmmakers, why not remove the bits that are wrong? There's no need to dismiss an entire resource because of two apparent issues: faulty actor listing and a misunderstood premise. After that, the article identifies the project as established in June-July, with the director, screenwriter, and cinematographer determined, as well as cast members besides Jake Weber. There's no sign, based on the attempted removals by editors in compliance with the OTRS tickets, that there's anything wrong with the source beyond Jake Weber's listing and the premise. Also, filmmakers may not be aware of Wikipedia's policies, so their requests for correction may not be in line with the policies. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, the logical solution, of including the contradictory information from the alleged OTRS is still being ignored. If we are willing to accept the veracity of the claims made in the supposed OTRS Ticket, why can't we accept the information and insert it in the article. Variety is a perfectly reliable source, and the information should be included with an appropriate indication that the filmmakers have corrected facts included in the source. The "we have to destroy the village to save it" mentality is entirely unreasonable. Alansohn 17:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Though Variety is typically a reliable source, an OTRS ticket identifies that article as unreliable. OTRS is the same process used by the subjects of articles to correct BLP issues, and I have to take it at face value. Surely there are other sources to replace the Variety article, especially the bits that are accurate? Even a follow-up piece from Variety would work. It's possible that some of the variety material could be referenced by the Sun article, but I still think it's a little thin without more information. I'll change to a Weak Delete - but, still, we need more. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• There is nothing wrong or unusual about an article about a forthcoming film containing details that have changed over time. So, let's try this again: If the details from the claimed information from the alleged filmmakers in the supposed OTRS ticket are a reliable source to rebut a claim from a respected industry newspaper, put the information in the article and you have all of the support you need to say what corrections need to be made to the Variety article. If the details from the purported filmmaker are not the gospel truth, they should be ignored. Either way you have all the sourcing you need. Alansohn 12:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 11:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Until more is known about the OTRS issue, obviously there is reliable sources... but how reliable are they. :P Dureo 12:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete then recreate - There is no desperate urgency that the article has to exist right now. Recreate when the film is released and that will sort out any innacuracies and "he said, she said" arguments. ---- WebHamster 12:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• The case for this article to exist is made with its notable coverage via Variety and the Baltimore Sun. It's not reasonable to express personal opinion that the article does not need to exist. Some inaccurate elements do not warrant immediate deletion. You cannot profess to determine who "needs" this article; if it meets notability standards, then it is in the sphere of awareness. A recent headline mentions, "More recently, Papamichael directed the psychological thriller From Within, currently in postproduction." If one saw this and was inclined to find out about the film, the article is acceptable to exist per notability standards. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please quit with the straw man argument. I didn't say that it shouldn't exist, I said that it doesn't need to exist right now. You did see the "right now" bit did you? Then why choose to ignore it? Perhaps it's because you can't give a pertinent answer to it? Instead you choose to argue a point that was never made. ---- WebHamster 13:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• You're splitting hairs very finely. The notability guidelines for films clearly handles unreleased films under its policy, and this article clearly meets this standard. The burden of proof is now firmly in your lap to demonstrate that there is a need to delete it under some other Wikipedia policy, and all we've seen so far is an argument that you're OK with it later but it doesn't need to exist right now. The problem is that there is no requirement to demonstrate a "need to exist right now" or a "desperate urgency" that an article remain, nor does any Wikipedia article "need to exist". You "need" to find a Wikipedia policy argument or all we have is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Alansohn 14:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• I misworded my response, but I don't appreciate accusation of using the straw man argument. I understand that you want to restore it with accurate information down the road, but it's not as if the whole article is erroneous. There is relevant information about the cast, crew, and production provided via significant coverage of reliable sources. Like I've shown you, Papamichael's making of From Within was reported in The Hollywood Reporter, so the film is clearly recognized in the public scope. The article's subject is notable and has relevant information about its production, so why remove any mention of it from the mainspace for a short time? Where is the threshold of enough accurate film information dictated? There is enough content to represent the basic structure of the film, and content shall surely grow. If the article is deleted, then whoever recreates it later may not be privy to the unique content already established here. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• By definition, any source (other than the people actually making the film) is unreliable when discussing a film that hasn't been made yet and hasn't been released. In the world of film-making nothing is final until the director/studio says so. At any time before that then any information that is not released by the film-makers or studio is inherently unreliable whether it comes from Variety or from Tatler or from The National Enquirer. The only reliable source is the studio or film-maker. If it's not reliable then it doesn't meet the criteria of Wikipedia. There is no such thing as a blanket "reliable source", each case has to be shown on a case by case basis and contextually. Even The Washington Post is unreliable if it's conjecture they are reporting. ---- WebHamster 15:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• WP:V clearly states, "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy... In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." Variety and the Baltimore Sun qualify as reliable sources. A reliable source's verifiable coverage is accepted unless another reliable source disputes it, then both perspectives are presented per WP:NPOV. This does not dismiss the reliable source from using its verifiable coverage ever again. The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. It's the first line at WP:V. You are dismissing all verifiable content because of two inaccuracies -- why does this warrant temporary deletion? Why not address the errors and preserve the rest of the content which is not disputed? The editors acting on OTRS removed the premise and one cast member, but touched nothing else, leaving plenty other information about film. So I still do not see grounds for temporary deletion. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep If the person claiming to be involved with the movie has updated information let them give an interview to reliable media or add information to their official blog. Then the changes would be in reliable media, or have the weight of an official announcement. Anyone can pretend to be someone by email, but it would harder to add information to a blog or to impersonate someone in in interview. If the Variety info is incorrect, all he has to do is contact them and they will emend the article. The New York Times makes corrections on a daily basis. There are proper channels to correct information in the mainstream press. Doing it by way of Wikipedia is just silly, and most likely a hoax. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• To follow up on his point, even if the e-mail is valid, the application of OTRS leading to the AfD for this film's article seems odd. From WP:OTRS, "OTRS volunteers may edit articles in the course of replying to emails. Such edits usually involve the removal of vandalism or unsourced derogatory assertions. Less frequently, OTRS volunteers handle copyright infringement complaints using one of the standard processes, or delete personal information from article histories." The purported mistake of listing a cast member or an inaccurate premise does not seem to warrant invocation of OTRS to fix. Can someone, mainly the nominator, clarify why the OTRS was used for these relatively meager errors? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. I'm striking my previous recommendation, above. The additional resources satisfy verifiability - but I still fail to see why they could not have been added two weeks ago. Had sources existed to supplement the variety source when it was called into question, there would have been no issue at all. Perhaps we should have a cup of coffee and relax. Best, ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:44, 25 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.