Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piles of dirt (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. --Coredesat 20:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Piles of dirt (film)
Non-notable film, only "independent review" is from an internet newsgroup, probable WP:COI. Leuko 17:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
This is not a majority vote. If someone brought this page to your attention, or you brought this page to others' attention, please make a note of this fact here. While widespread participation is encouraged, the primary purpose of this page is to gauge consensus of a representative sample of Wikipedians; therefore, it's important to know whether someone is actively soliciting others from a non-neutral location to discuss. Such contributors are not prohibited from commenting, but it's important for the closing administrator or bureaucrat to know how representative the participants are of Wikipedians generally. See Wikipedia:Canvassing.
- Delete - only one independent source cited, so no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in third-party sources to establish notability. Also reads like an advert. Walton Vivat Regina! 17:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This entry should definitely NOT be deleted. This short film recently debuted at an independent film festival in Los Angeles to rave reviews, and I understand it is slated to be shown at more festivals in the States and Europe later this year. Furthermore, there are some very well-known people from the art world who appear in the film, making it more noteworthy than most short films. The artworks by Julian Scaff that are featured in the film have been included in major art exhibitions in Beirut and Amsterdam. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Taye talbot (talk • contribs). — Taye talbot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep This is a legitimate film produced by a legitimate filmmaker and production company with a track record. Furthermore it just premiered at a film festival in Los Angeles that has been around for more than 10 years. Since this is a new film that just premiered there are not many sources yet, but there will be more as the film is screened at more festivals. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jscaff (talk • contribs) 18:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC). — Jscaff (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment: Please note that the film festival mentioned as an indication of notability is under discussion at its own AfD for not being notable itself. Leuko 21:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. First and foremost, that a film is going to appear in a festival does not mean it is notable, it means it's going to appear in a festival - so declarations of future notability become crystal ballisms. User Jscaff above even notes that there aren't many sources yet - which brings me to point the second, notability. A lack of sources is a lack of sources - and regardless of who makes it and who is in the film, the film is still required to meet the notability guidelines. Third and finally, there is probably conflict of interest in the article. I'm inclined to believe that the article may be a means of promotion of this film - which is one of the things that WP is not for. I have no prejudice against recreation in the future, but it must meet the guidelines. --Dennisthe2 20:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, googling "piles of dirt scaff" gives one (1) result, unrelated, and nothing at all on Google News Archive. Non-notable, and who appears in something is not relevant as notability is not generally transferable. --Dhartung | Talk 21:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Lack of an Internet Movie Database for this film implies that it has not yet attained notability. --Metropolitan90 00:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: While I completely agree with your reasoning, just as an aside, the converse is not necessarily true. Since IMDB allows anyone to create new entries, the existence of an IMDB listing is not a good indicator of notability, since it is not necessarily "independent." Leuko 01:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Just for clarity, I consider an IMDb entry a minimum requirement for a film to have a Wikipedia article; I'm not saying that all films listed in IMDb are sufficiently notable to warrant articles in Wikipedia. However, IMDb is not a wiki; they have editors who confirm the eligibility of submitted titles before they appear on the web site. I've submitted a few films for listing in IMDb myself, and while most were accepted, one was not because the staff could not verify its eligibility. IMDb is an independent source and reasonably reliable, but listing in it does not automatically prove notability because they accept any film that has been commercially released to theaters or on home video, among other criteria. --Metropolitan90 02:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Cool, thanks for the explanation. In case an IMDB entry appears before the end of the AfD, I didn't want someone to think that such an entry was some sort of defacto indicator of notability. (As I have seen on other AfD's). Leuko 02:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Just for clarity, I consider an IMDb entry a minimum requirement for a film to have a Wikipedia article; I'm not saying that all films listed in IMDb are sufficiently notable to warrant articles in Wikipedia. However, IMDb is not a wiki; they have editors who confirm the eligibility of submitted titles before they appear on the web site. I've submitted a few films for listing in IMDb myself, and while most were accepted, one was not because the staff could not verify its eligibility. IMDb is an independent source and reasonably reliable, but listing in it does not automatically prove notability because they accept any film that has been commercially released to theaters or on home video, among other criteria. --Metropolitan90 02:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: While I completely agree with your reasoning, just as an aside, the converse is not necessarily true. Since IMDB allows anyone to create new entries, the existence of an IMDB listing is not a good indicator of notability, since it is not necessarily "independent." Leuko 01:50, 2 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.
