Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GRODMIN (film) (2nd nomination)

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 10:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GRODMIN (film)

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

Contested prod. Non notable independent movie. No reviews, awards, influence, ... Director, actors, ... aren't famous. Listed in IMDb is not a claim to fame. 30 distinct Google hits[1], most of those IMDb mirrors. Fram 06:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Disputing "Deletion." - "Fame," as per the noted objections, is not a necessary criteria to establish the relevance or informational benefit of an article. Previous users are selectively omitting information that runs counter to the deletion agenda. Users blatantly fail to acknowledge the relevance of the IMDB as a credible, secondary source, dismiss the relevance of "non-famous" industry actors (Richard Paro, Cyra Polizzi, Eef Barzelay) who clearly have multiple acting and production credits amongst them (IMDB), fail to acknowledge well cited review clips in the article (Source: The Onion, Volume 39, issue 44 and Volume 39, issue 46. Reviews by Stephen Thompson), and fail to acknowledge other, credible, "non-IMDB" links that corroborate the history of the film. Users also fail to acknowledge the importance of the "art school," narrative content of the film as relevant or unique, as per the article which states "...Predating the 2006 release of Art School Confidential by director Terry Zwigoff, Grodmin is also one of the few American films whose central narrative documents the lives of students at a university art program." -- This one fact alone (despite the film's lack of "Hollywood fame") seems to make its entry of great importance; to artists, as well as filmmakers. -- While this film does not appear to be a packed with well-known celebrities - as the users suggest is necessary for inclusion in Wikipedia, - there seems to be enough verifiable material to leave GRODMIN (film) posted for those users who may find its information of use. There is no shortage of space in Wikipedia, and the merit of this film does have clear and obvious relevance to art students and independent filmmakers whose ideas and contributions are clearly of value in our society. -- User: GrantHyde 18:31, 22 March 2007 — GrantHyde (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .
    • Sorry. As a terciary source, WP is dependent on secondary sources reacting to the existence of article subjects, otherwise, lofty claims cannot be verified. IMdb is not a reliable secondary source but, not unlike Wikipeda, one that relies on contributor effort. Please present The Onion source and other coverage so this can all be settled. A film depicting life at art school is in itself truly not notable. MURGH disc. 00:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, as well. As I understand it, while the IMDB relies on contributor efforts to compile and submit its information, its different from WP in that all material is subject to official IMDB staff review amid further verification of its authenticity and credibility. Unlike WP where information can be posted and linger until its confirmed, nothing on the IMDB gets posted unless it can first be confirmed. The independent actors in this film (while obscure) do have credible profiles that have already been confirmed at numerous sources (Richard Paro (Richard Paro at the Internet Movie Database, Cyra Polizzi Cyra K. Polizzi at the Internet Movie Database, Eef Barzelay/Clem Snide (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/7045645/clem_snide_go_south)). If you do a Google search for this film and its "screenings" [2] there do seem to be some articles and related material. While a film depicting life at art school would not be notable if there were already hundreds of movies out there that had already done so, the fact that this seems to be only one of a few that does so, strikes me as notable. I am basing this on the lack of information on the Web about other art school related films. -- As far as the director, Jim Horowitz is concerned, I can't seem to find much on him, but his article doesn't claim much, either. -- He directed an independent film and is a member of this cartooning society. While he may not be a high-profile character on the Internet, I know that the NCS is a very well-established organization, and only high level artists like Charles Schulz and Gary Larson are voted in. That, in itself, strikes me as significant. -- Like you said, these articles aren't wildly significant, but I think they do represent an element of importance. Maybe we don't travel in these circles, but I think those who do would be glad to find this information in place. -- I say we leave them for now and re-visit (if necessary) in another three months. I vote to remove the "deletions".
    • Please don't misunderstand that I suggest IMdb doesn't screen its contributions, but the actual existence of the media is the only criterion. WP however needs sources so the article's descriptive content can be attributed to reliable publication. Otherwise, WP can only ever be another bulletin board of random truth. Mine or your opinion of this film's notability as an "art school" film is irrelevant in WP context, and only comes into play if a reliable secondary source suggests it. As is, this film's internet presence is almost exclusively IMdb and WP mirrors, the kind of publicity 1 motivated person can spread in half a day, and until that changes (or other media acceptable sources are presented), the article should be removed from WP, although there is nothing wrong with userfying the article until criteria are met. MURGH disc. 13:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Disputing "Deletion." - The film Grodmin is a document and a fact, with the proof of existence cited above.

Grodmin's importance may not yet be widely known, but that is due more to economic forces than anything else. Please let me explain. I am owner of Dreamfast Cinema, a Chicago-based label for video and audio releases. I first saw Jim Horwitz feature film Grodmin at the 2006 Lake County Film Festival, and recognized it as a powerful story, a psychological/surreal fantasy, which would appeal younger audiences. I approached Mr. Horwitz for the DVD rights to his film. Although Dreamfast Cinema will not be the label bringing Grodmin out on DVD, I heartily support the film and its maker.

One thing I know about releasing a film with limited festival exposure, is that reviewers are reluctant to review the film until it is available for home-viewing, and reviews are often timed to appear very close to the DVD release date. As there has been no DVD release date set yet, (to my knowledge), it is totally understandable that there are few reviews to document Grodmin.

Independent films come in all forms: those with large budgets and known actors, through those with no budgets, assembled by passion. Grodmin is the latter. To expect every film to have the same resources and publicity, just by virtue of being made, is to misunderstand the entire genre. When Grodmin is released in a home-viewing format, it will be easier for everyone to track, and who knows, there may even be some reviews to feed those hungry for facts.

I vote to leave Grodmin in Wikipedia, whether or not it receives further verification. Bruce Wood 03:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC) — Dreamfast (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .

Noone disputes that the movie exist, but existence isn't enough to justify inclusion in Wikipedia. We need reliable, secondary, independent sources establishing the notability of each entry and the correctness of the claims an article makes. Is the film really "groundbreaking"? We have only the article's word for it. Did it fool irts audience into believing its fictional lie? Again, we only have the article to support that claim. Being listed at the IMDb only shows that the movie exist, but nothing more. Yiou can compare this to the requirements from WP:MUSIC: it is not enough to have recorded an album to be listed in Wikipedia. Similarly (per WP:NOTE, it is not enough to have made a movie and shown it once or twice to have an entry for that movie in Wikipedia. If the DVD release happens, and if it then gets considerable reviews (not just in the local newspaper and the University newspaper), then it can be recreated. For now, it's a completely non notable movie. Fram 08:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Disputing "Deletion." - "Is the film really "groundbreaking"? We have only the article's word for it. Did it fool its audience into believing its fictional lie? Again, we only have the article to support that claim." - This is clearly not true. I have found 9 separate reviews of the film at the IMDB [3]; one of which is from someone in Germany. I have no data on whether or not these reviews were written by "professional" writers, but as individual voices corroborating the "groundbreaking" elements of the film, I see no reason why this audience testimony should be marked as invalid, or irelevent? These reviews clearly verify the claims of the article. The points made by the user above, Bruce Wood (a film producer, no less) all seem quite valid. I think the "deletion" users are splitting hairs over the alleged "importance" or so called "prominence" of other sources. As cited above, the film is a fact and has already been reviewed by multiple people. I vote to remove the deletion notices and leave GRODMIN (film) in Wikipedia for another 2 months, pending more investigation into its validity. Perhaps more sources will emerge, as user User:Dreamfast|Bruce Wood suggested. Let's check back on May 23, 2007. If there are no new posts about this matter in 24 hours, I will consider the matter closed and remove the deletions. [User: GrantHyde] 11:52, 24 March 2007
    • Comment. Yes, those IMdb review "voices of audience testimony" are invalid. Again, see the WP:ATT for how WP article presence is justified, and please ease on the lawyerly moves. Removing the deletion notice has no constructive effect. MURGH disc. 10:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 07:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. No evidence whatsoever that third parties unrelated to the film are discussing it. Without that third-party interest, this article doesn't belong on Wikipedia, plain and simple. --Charlene 09:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: The article is totally unattributed (as per WP:RS) and is a PoV mess. Plus, as others have already pointed out, it does not meet notability requirements. --soum (0_o) 10:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails primary notability requirements, also the article is a mess, filled with OR and unverfiable claims. Thethinredline 14:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete this article as it currently fails encyclopedic inclusion criteria. Mr. Berry 16:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete at best totally non-notable and possibly a hoax. Also, while I assume good faith etc, there's a distinct smell of socks in this discussion. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't see any reason to think this is a hoax, just a low-budget independent film that received a few obscure screenings without getting a commercial release or any full reviews in significant publications. The fact that this movie deals with life in art school does not convey notability in itself, nor do the cast members who are not particularly well known themselves. If the film gets a commercial release on DVD, and then reviews start coming out in notable publications, the article can be recreated at that time -- preferably under the name Grodmin since the title isn't an acronym and doesn't need disambiguation. --Metropolitan90 21:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Going on lack of notability, no reliable sources to establish notability. Despite the disputes above, unless these are fixed, the issue won't be settled. --Dennisthe2 21:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Clarification. As it pertains to this article, how are we choosing to define "notability?" "...No evidence to support third parties unrelated to the film are discussing it," but no reason to think that they are not. Also, what do we mean when we say "reliable" sources? Is the one film festival that the film director above mentioned "reliable?" Aren't the various, small showings above "reliable?" Or, is it going to be our claim that in addition to supporting this article "weakly" (which, in itself, seems vague) that some of these sources may, in fact, be "fake." -- That's a very slope. I don't think it speaks well for what's supposed to be a reasonable and open-minded debate While the consensus seem to be that the film needs more sources to establish its importance (which I agree), I think some of the terms used in the above statements seem a bit off. Can someone please paste the WPs "notability" criteria below. Also, that which establishes the reputability of the third party source? I think it would help us all with this discussion. User:Milo88 21:50, 25 March 2007 — User:Milo88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
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.