Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interactive 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 and redirect to Interactive video. Daniel Bryant 23:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Interactive film
This is an article on a recently coined neologism. While "interactive film" is a commonly used term,[1] a Google search indicates that the term as defined in the article is not currently in common usage [2] [3]. The article may have been written by the person who coined the term, which raises potential WP:COI concerns.
I suggest either a) deleting this article as a non-notable neologism per WP:NEO and WP:NOT#OR, or b) redirecting without merge to interactive cinema or interactive movie until an editor writes a sourced article that accurately reflects the term's current usage. --Muchness 22:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have amended the article. I have removed any reference to proponants of the interactive film term. I thought by including references to the proponants that I was "attributing reliable sources". I do not think that the term "Interactive film should be removed from wikipedia. As you can see there is already a "category" called Interactive film Category:Interactive film, which, infact, categorizes the term interactive cinema. If anyone has views on what the definition for interactive film actually is then I suggest they contribute to the article. But I think it would be a serious mistake to erase the term from wikipedia. Anyone who doubts the term "interactive film" as I have defined it should maybe check this link, and the examples it provides: 2007 Links to Online Interactive Films and Movies Most, if not all, of the examples supplied here fit into my definition of Interactive Film. Once again: I think I would be a gross miscalculation to omit the phrase from wikipedia. Neillodwyer 15:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
It is quite shortsighted to suggest that the term 'interactive film' is not in use and/or not suitable for inclusion in this wiki. I am the owner of an interactive film (shot on 35 mm FILM) which has 85 different permutations and was created with a $2 million budget. What should I call the final product, if not an 'interactive film'?
Neillodwyer 09:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)THANKS FOR YOUR CONTRIBUTION, CAN YOU PLEASE IDENTIFY YOURSELF? Neill
- Weak Delete The term is not more than the sum of its parts and the article is still pushing the author's vision in a coy sort of way. - Richfife 00:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- redirect, no merge to interactive video. I think that, despite being a neologism, it is still way too generic; I first thought of it as interactive video. 142.58.101.27 17:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete than redirect to interactive video. Non-notable neologism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cyberjunkie (talk • contribs) 17:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC).
- Delete. I can't tell if this is an OR essay or a clever way to direct traffic to a web site, but either way there is no evidence of notability of this term. --Mus Musculus 20:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I have to say I am surprised at your ineptitude and inability to grasp this, that's right, NEW concept. It is not a neologism, it is a development a very real and quickly expanding sector, particularly in Canada, the UK & Ireland. I dare say that you have not even bothered to reference the examples I have provided you with.
I am hesitant to merge the article with interactive video because the article is comprised of boring, technical jargon and relates specifically to some format of laser disk, a technology which is now almost obsolete (interactive films run on the internet). Also, it refers specifically to video gaming. An interactive film is not a video game (NOT computer generated graphics). It is a film with multiple outcomes/possabilities, with which the viewer must interact. Again the Interactive cinema article is also written with a specific leaning towards video gaming, although is closer to the spirit of what i am trying to express. Interactive film, IS NOT video gaming. It is, as one of you has put it "the sum of its parts", films that are interactive.
I am new to Wikipedia, so I am unfamiliar with your agreed upon codes of writing articles and referencing existing work. However, I am trying to satisfy them. I would encourage you to help me with the article rather than writing it off as noelogism and Original Research OR. Also, in response to those of you who think it is weak, I feel that the article is stronger than much of what is already up there on wikipedia, and particularly some of the articles you are suggesting that I merge my own with.
Interactive film is a very real field of work, employing numerous people world wide. Please refer to the examples I have provided you with before writing your next response.
Neillodwyer 09:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Neillodwyer
- 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.
