Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Legge (filmmaker) (third 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 keep Michael Legge (filmmaker) and Sideshow Cinema, no consensus as to Sick Time, Potential Sins, and Braindrainer, as these specific films have not received adequate discussion in this AFD, and redirect Working Stiffs to Michael Legge (filmmaker) per Wikipedia:Verifiability, as Working Stiffs is entirely unreferenced. John254 02:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Legge (filmmaker)

Michael Legge (filmmaker) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Fails WP:BIO. In the last two years this article has not asserted its importance. This person has some self-produced, self-starred movies, none assert WP:NOTE. According to this, he is a United States postal employee. Of the two sources mentioned they do not prove notability, and in fact aren't even widely accessible (see: ISBN 0787690422 or enter it in google to see this article come up as the first hit) His only claim is winning an award from a film festival, which appears to be nothing great; its an undistinguished festival. 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.

WP:BIO reads:

  • Entertainers: actors, comedians, opinion makers, and television personalities
    • With significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions. (No sources to prove this for Legge)
    • Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. (No sources to prove this for Legge)
    • Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment (No sources to prove this for Legge)

Previous AFDs:

I came across this when I noticed some really nasty things said to the afd nominator of his films: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democrazy (film) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Honey Glaze (2) (currently ongoing.)

Also up for this nom is his films: Working Stiffs, Sick Time, Potential Sins, and Braindrainer. Plus his company Sideshow Cinema (closed as no consensus last time).

Includes Sideshow Cinema redirects (includes previously deleted material)

  • Steven Mullahoo
  • Diane Mela
  • BJ McCoy

Note: Having an Internet Movie Database entry does not make one notable it is user-submitted. As anyone can submit material. Also these enteries are made by a few select accounts. He is a non-notable United States postal worker. Arbustoo 23:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Sideshow Cinema (and all redirects to it), as a collection of mini-bios on amateur "actors" (or redirect it to Legge if he survives this AFD. No merge, beyond the intro). No opinion on the others. -R. fiend 01:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Updated vote: Redirect all fims and Sideshow Cinema to Legge, with only the very slightest hint of a smerge of anything within the articles. Delete all redirects for the actors; as the films have been deleted for lack of notability, the actors have to follow. -R. fiend 21:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep It would seem one article for the producer of the films would be warranted, though probably not the individual films. However, I am not comfortable with 1/ trying to put down (twice) the subject as "a postal employee"--one expects even a notable amateur filmmaker to have a regular job. 2/ Referring to nasty comments in a different Afd--we're supposed to be judging the notability of the subject of the article 3/ mass nominations. I would expect some of his films to be more important than others, and it would seem reasonable to nominate them for deletion first. This goes even more so for the actors. To the extent that this is a walled garden, break down the wall of the least notable stuff. 4/I know this is not intended as a vendetta because I know the eds. involved, but if I were just coming to WP, I might possibly get the wrong impression. DGG 04:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment: What WP:RS show the subject(s) as notable? As for his occupation, I'll quote the Internet Movie Database in full (this is its ENTIRE biography) about this "director": "Michael Legge, Birth 12 June 1953, Massachusetts, USA, He made a spoof of 'The Bridge on the River Kwai' (1957) while in high school. When not acting, writing or making film he works as a United States postal employee."[1] How is someone who made a "spoof" of a movie wikiworthy? Self-producing movies is enough for a "weak keep"?Arbustoo 04:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Legge, and the films listed here, no opinion on the actors. I suggest listing the actors separately for the sake of discussion, because the guy who makes the films is a different can of worms. Regardless, Legge undoubtedly meets our standards, the article is very well sourced and there's no issue. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep for Legge himself It's very borderline, but I think he's just about notable on the basis that he does unarguably have a following of sorts and some recognition.. Delete all films and actors listed here for these are not notable (no non trivial coverage) and therefore deserve no more than a note on "work by this person" on Legge's page. A1octopus 11:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
    • What following? How do you know? I haven't found anything that shows he has a cult following. No one in any of the afds (view their histoiries) has ever given proof. Its been two years. This has remained on wikipedia because of "weak keep votes" and no consensus. Its time to either show how this person has a following or delete. Arbustoo 16:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all No notability demonstrated for any of the people or films. If we consider articles with sources this trivial to pass notability, we'd have articles on every person on earth who ever made their own film regardless of whether it was ever released anywhere. --Minderbinder 17:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • MIXED. I have written my recommendation on the fate of the articles, along with supporting arguments, below:
    • Weak keep for Michael Legge (filmmaker) per coverage in "Contemporary Theatre, Film and Television, Volume 46. Gale Group, 2003." and "Making Movies on Your Own: Practical Talk from Independent Filmmakers, Kevin J. Lindenmuth, MacFarland & Company", as described in the references. Given how well-sourced the article is, I feel we should err on the side of caution.
    • Delete the 4 films (Working Stiffs, Sick Time, Potential Sins, and Braindrainer) as containing too little content, without prejduice to proper recreation (if possible) or to redirecting the pages somewhere.
    • Keep Sideshow Cinema per the previous AfD a month ago. Consensus can change, but I see no reason why it should have.
    • Conditionally keep the 5 actor redirects per GFDL iff Sideshow Cinema is kept. Content was merged from all 5 pages and GFDL requires that the edit histories of the redirects be preserved. -- Black Falcon 22:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Its worth pointing out that all these articles have been kept on the basis of no consensus, including the Sideshow Cinema AFD last month, which have been influenced by possible role accounts that have voted in favor of JUST these pages for the last two years. Arbustoo 01:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
        • One of my reasons for suggesting keep for Sideshow Cinema is that it might be a good candidate to merge into Michael Legge (filmmaker), following discussion on the talk page. So, I suppose, my recommendation to keep "Sideshow Cinema" is, as with the redirects, conditional on the Legge article being kept. -- Black Falcon 02:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Surely you don't want to merge several dozen mini-bios into a single article on Legge? I agree that a few sentences on Sideshow Cinema would work, but a cut and paste merge would be a disaster. -R. fiend 12:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
            • Oh, of course not. Any merge of Sideshow Cinema inthe the article on Legge would involve only the two introductory paragraphs of the former. I still think its appropriate to mention the "stable of actors", but a single sentence or two listing the more notable/more involved ones would probably suffice. -- Black Falcon 16:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep based on those references. --JJay 22:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Using a AFD started by me for WP:POINT instead of dealing with your ongoing RfC? Explain how ANYTHING meets WP:BIO or WP:CORP. This not a vote, but a discussion. Arbustoo 00:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. 3 awards at the B-Movie Film Festival indicates he is a notable figure in that genre. One could be debatable, 3 is strong. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, I'm afraid no one has shown the importance of the B-Movie Film Festival. A local film festival DOES NOT establish this person as "a notable figure in that genre." Feel free to offer proof. Arbustoo 02:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • keep - if the above-mentioned 3 awards at the B-Movie Film Festival establish his notability as a b-movie maker. As for the movies, if people want to delete the individual articles, may I suggest they could all be merged into the Michael Legge article? Same for his Sideshow Cinema article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • comment - by the way, since he's (supposedly) a filmmaker, shouldn't the criterion under which he is judged be "creative professionals", and not "entertainers"? And, regarding the B-Movie Film Festival charging $40 for entry - yes, but they are still judged. It may not be at all notable for him to enter, but for him to get 3 awards out of it, maybe. I'd like to point out to the readers here that an awful lot of "very notable" events (such as NXNE, SXSW, and all sorts of other music events and even awards organizations) charge you money to enter an item for judging or for public display. It's not analogous at all to vanity publishing, for example. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Good point. Who are the videos judged by? Some guy collecting $40.00 in New York or some expert in the field? Arbustoo 02:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Didn't you look this up at their website? In 2006 the judges were: Ron Bonk (organizer of the festival); Yvette Petit (event planner, morning air personality at Syracuse radio station); Phil Hall (contributing editor for Film Threat, the author of "The Encyclopedia of Underground Movies" and "Independent Film Distribution" and a member of the Governing Committee of the Online Film Critics Society. His film journalism has appeared in the New York Times, Wired Magazine and American Movie Classics Magazine); Cristina Stacia (PhD canditate at U Syracuse studying film theory); Tim Ferlito (some sort of local media guy). Is the judges' panel of insufficient quality to demonstrate notability? If so, maybe we should AfD that page too. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
LOL. I did look it up. Is Ron Bonk notable? He is a "local filmmaker" who acts in Legge's films! His wikipedia article redirects to Sideshow Cinema (nominated here)! Anyway, what makes his film festival important that it gives Legge notability? Arbustoo 02:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
The fact that even being nominated for such an award gets you notice, investors willing to give you money to make more films, "like heaven to the world of independent filmmaking", is, I believe, what the cited third party quote at the top of the [B-Movie Film Festival]] article says. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, deleted yesterday. While, less selectively, the AfD on his other movie Honey Glaze resulted in no consensus, also yesterday. I think neither matter, if Wikipedia policy is for each article to be judged on its own merits. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Selective in the sense that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democrazy (film) was deleted and was the movie that he won the award for. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Honey Glaze (2), with on consensus, had at least 2 WP:SPA, and had no awards, and has no press mentions. Arbustoo 01:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Selective in the sense that you pick and choose what precedent you propose we should all follow, or even tell us about. And you keep writing about "the award", even though it says all over the place -- this discussion, the article, and the film festival article -- that he has won several, specifically three. That's pretty selective too, so much that you're verging on actual dishonesty. Please, let's not go that far for this simple decision. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep making one or two direct-to-video feature-length moves would be borderline. Making a 20-year career out of doing so, with a troupe of regular actors, is pretty notable in my opinion. the repeated nominatorion and re-nomination of this is just bizarre. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    • A bit of a stretch, methinks. Calling it a "20-year career" (particularly the "career" bit) makes it sound as if this is his living, when it's really just a hobby. He doesn't make money off these (if he did he'd probably have the budget to buy a second sword [2]). And his "troupe of regular actors" just shows that when you find a couple dozen people willing to work for free you use them again and again. I'll admit this guy's opus is of greater significance greater than some of those movies friends of mine used to make (also using the same troupe of actors, like Legge: friends), and he may just be notable enough for an article, what I (and I think many others) have an issue with is the chain-rule of notability, wherein everything associated with Mr. Just-clears-the-notability-bar somehow warrants an article. Keep Legge is we must, but redirect everything else to him. If we can confine the entire Legge/Borgman promotional machine to a single article, I'll be satisfied. -R. fiend 21:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Come on, now. Whether Legge makes big bucks from his movies is totally irrelevant: quite a few great and famous artists, writers, musicians, etc were not financially successful at what they did, and many of them held other jobs their whole lives. Is Einstein remembered as a patent-office worker? Is Van Gogh remembered as a preacher? Is Sidis remembered as an office clerk? (well, perhaps.) In any case, I don't necessarily object to merging all Legge-related articles into one, but I cannot say I wholly support it either, simply because it's rather a bizarre solution and out of step with the rest of our film coverage, where it's highly uncommon to see films merged in with their makers. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
      • You're arguments are made up of pure speculation and outright lies. Dwain
        • Woah, major WP:NPA alert. I agree with you about keeping, but let's keep this civil, please. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep All Despite what the gameshow loser, the bike junkie and the possible sockpuppet nominator has to say Michael Legge, his films and his production company are notable entities. Legge's films have had a few distributors over the years it looks like. The latest is Sub Rosa. Legge's plays are printed by authentic publishers and his films over the years have won awards and been distributed on television such as The Lemon Man. Arbustoo neglected to mention that Sideshow Cinema survived deletion less than a month ago! And I am really tired of the paranoid rants of walled-gradens and promotions too! I have contributed a lot of editing and started a lot of articles on Wikipedia am I the PR agent for every person whose article I haved edited?! Don't think so! Oh, and the IMDB is not like Wikipedia, information that is added by users is verified by IMDB staff. It is difficult to get things added to IMDB! Dwain 23:58, 20 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.