Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Honey Glaze (2)

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 No consensus. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 17:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Honey Glaze

Honey Glaze (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Spammy article on a zero-budget film from the Michael Legge walled garden, kept by VfD back in the days before we had clarified the WP:N criterion that articles should be the primary focus of multiple non-trivial sources. This has not, apparently, been the focus of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. IMDB, for example, is user-submitted, most indie film articles are uploaded by the makers. Guy (Help!) 21:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep, seems notable enough for multiple sources: [1], [2], [3]. Fine for a stub. - Denny (talk) 21:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Independence of those sources? Guy (Help!) 17:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • None of them have anything to do with Legge or Honey Glaze. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I've never seen a request like this since reading/working on WP--is this standard? - Denny (talk) 17:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • And for what its worth, they look like they're not even from the same country: [4], [5], [6]. I would like a clear answer on the nature of this request, though. - Denny (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Did you look at the links? How do they assert notablity? In your [3] link, the review refers to the director as "Michael who?" and talks about how horrible it is. So how do you get your work reviewed by that website? Mail it to them (For what its worth, a South African address-- so its international postage). The other b-independent.com is "is committed to helping the Ultra-independent distribute his film free of charge". We need WP:RS to prove notability. Not a website where anyone can mail a copy of their movie to or get it distributed. Arbustoo 04:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Of the external links provided in the article, only the ones to IMDB and to B Independent contain any information whatsoever, and both of those sites rely on user-submitted content. They're not by any stretch of the imagination reliable sources. Regarding the previous vfd, of the two users opining for retention, one turned out to be a months-long breaching experiment voting keep for articles that should be deleted and delete for articles that should be kept, and the other is beyond any reasonable doubt one of the actors/directors/whatever involved with these movies. It's entirely possible for micro-budget films to become notable and attract third-party attention, but Honey Glaze is no Primer. —Cryptic 21:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • A tough keep. Low-budget indie films mean low-budget indie reviews. Denny's links show the importance for the genre, and Legge's statue within the community are enough to make any of his works notable anyway. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment How is the movie or even the director notable? You mentioned his "statue within the community" when both the links supplied above refer to him as "Michael who" (anyone can submit their movie) and his bio mentions NOTHING.[7] As for his single award. 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. Hardly impressive. Arbustoo 04:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Very weak keep if there are more reviews. DGG 05:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This is part of a wide ranging campaign by JzG and others to remove certain articles from Wikipedia regardless of whether they meet the notability standard or not! Keep as per Dennycolt and Badlydrawnjeff and the fact that this and other movies by Legge are notable in the field of cult cinema. Billions 14:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment This is the 12th day the above user has been active. He also votes on afd's related to this "director". Importantly, he has given NO reason for WHY it is notable. Arbustoo 23:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete no proof of importance. Arbustoo 23:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment director, and massive redirects up for afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Legge (filmmaker) (third nomination). Arbustoo 23:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • comment - No vote yet, but this movie is apparently in the Blockbuster Video database: [8]. Also, Legge has a box at VH1.com [9]. I'll look for a review somewhere. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sources seem to be trivial or user-submitted ones, movie fails to demonstrate notability. --Minderbinder 17:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • no comment - The review Arbustoo refers to above that says "Michael who?" nevertheless is a review of the movie. I was under the impression that a third-party article doesn't have to assert notability, but the fact that there is a third-party review proves notability. Please clarify this for me. (If WP articles needed external articles to assert the subject's notability, we'd be in the process of deleting 1000 articles on Simpsons episodes, wouldn't we? Or is every single Simpsons episode notable?) I really want to vote keep, but I'll stay out of this - though I sincerely hope that the criterion to keep an article on a low-budget movie isn't the same as for a major release. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:15, 17 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.