Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Mercury (Movie)

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 as non-notable, unverified and possible hoax film, and restore from point in edit history when the existing mess was replaced with information on a wholly separate and notable film with the same name.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Red Mercury (Movie)

Red Mercury (Movie) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article fails to meet notability criteria for films, and is probably a vanity article as well. Compare the name of the creating account with the listed producers and stars. Pairadox (talk) 23:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete I'd love to see the reviews on this :? -- Librarianofages (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Either really non-notable, really crystalballing or really hoaxalicious™: a search for "Red Mercury" and "Chad Will" turned up nothing about the movie. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete That the article was created by ScottAndChad and was produced by Scott and Chad, and stars Scott and Chad (and their friends?) suggests that Scott and Chad might be getting a thrill from seeing this on Wikipedia. Wait until they call everyone they know, then delete. Mandsford (talk) 00:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Blatant vanispamcruftisement —Travistalk 00:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Crap! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • comment -- Article says this is a 2008 film. There is at least one real film with this title.
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Unverifiable as per WP:V and blatant spam. I really want to see the film though. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 14:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment -- I took ten minutes to flesh out a stub amount of info about the 2005 film. Geo Swan (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I am left wondering why our nominator didn't take the trouble to determine whether there was a real film named Red Mercury.
    • This triggers one of my concerns with the wikipedia. There is an aphorism, I'll paraphrase: "Too many executive chefs, not enough dishwashers". I think the wikipedia project would be healthier if some of its self-appointed quality-control patrolers were willing undertake some of the basic, simple, obvious maintenance tasks rather than jump straight to nominations for deletion.
    • Please don't nominate articles for deletion if you haven't spent thirty seconds on a basic web search, to see if the topic merits coverage.
    • WP:DEL says that articles shouldn't be nominated for deletion if the topic merits coverage, even if the current version is weak.
    • "Red Mercury (Movie)" does merit inclusion, because a movie was made:
      1. with notable actors;
      2. which premiered at Cannes;
      3. and has been released released world-wide, albeit only on DVD.
    • Any one of the above merits coverage here.
    • Please, when voicing an opinion, don't count on the nominator doing due diligence. Nominators lapsing from proper diligence is routine in the deletion fora.
    • Please actually read the article for yourself. Do your own web search to see if the topic merits coverage.
    • Please, if the topic merits coverage don't endorse counter-policy nominations for deletion.
    • One more request. Please bear in mind the advice in WP:ATA. Please avoid arguments that boil down to "me too". Geo Swan (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep for reasons detailed above.
    • I have no attachment to the unreferenced material about the 2008 film. I didn't remove it because of WP:BITE. IMO the newbies who started it deserve a chance to reference reliable sources while the {{afd}} remains open. Geo Swan (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Note that the article as nominated was clearly not talking about the 2005 film. Other than the same title and similar subject matter, I can’t see how it could possibly be assumed that the author(s) meant to write about the real movie. —Travistalk 20:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment Geo Swan has really made an ass of himself with the assumptions about what research I did before nominating this article. As Travis has pointed out, the article was not about the 2005 film, nor did it make any pretense to be about the 2005 film. (Nor is it related to cinnabar. WTF was that about?) Geo Swan's "fleshing out" of the article has just confused matters, and doesn't even follow usual Wikipedia film article conventions, which is usually one film per article. When there are two different films with the same name, they are given different articles and the year of the film is usually in the article name. So yeah, Geo, I did do a LOT more than 30 seconds research, found the "real" film, and still decided to nominate this article for deletion. You disagree with that decision, fine, but there is absolutely no need to level a personal attack against me. Pairadox (talk) 21:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Comment And now the major contributor to the article, an IP address that is almost certainly for the creator of the article, has just removed ALL mention of the 2005 film, bringing the article back to the two-kids-with-a-video-camera flick that doesn't belong on WP. Pairadox (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Please don't call other contributors names. I didn't call you names. I did my best to make my point without being offensive. If you were offended I failed, and you have my apologies.
        • I am glad to hear that you think doing research on the topic of an article before nominating it for deletion is important.
        • May I suggest you consider showing your work? If you did a web search, and saw there was a real film called "Red Mercury" may I suggest it would have made sense to mention it, in your nomination?
        • I am going to suggest that the existence of a real film, entitled "Red Mercury", with real stars, that premiered at Cannes, and has been released world-wide on DVD, is information those weighing in with an opinion on whether the wikipedia should have an an article entitled "Red Mercury (Movie)" deserve to know.
        • Yes you are entitled to conclude the existence of a real film entitled "Red Mercury" is irrelevant when deciding whether to delete the wikipedia's article entitled "Red Mercury".
        • But perhaps it hasn't occurred to you that by not bothering to mention the existence of the real film some might wonder whether you intended to preclude fair consideration for an article under this title by the other participants who wouldn't otherwise share your conclusion?
        • I saw that you reverted vandalism from the article's creators. They tried to delete the referenced material I added. I left a warning on that IP's talk page.
        • This eroded my trust in the creator's good faith, so I replaced their unreferenced material with the referenced material. Geo Swan (talk) 03:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep because even though the earlier revisions about a purported 2008 film appear to be a hoax, there appears to be valid information about the 2005 film, such as a review at Variety. Results at Google show to have more details. Of course, if the consensus is to keep, move it to Red Mercury (film) per naming conventions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Verifiable film, review in Variety - [1]. Catchpole (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Incredible An article that started as a practical joke has been rewritten by the helpful GeoSwan as an article about an actual film. Swan may have been trying to be nice, but all she's done is to encourage the Scotts and Chads of the world to make some more messes. What you're voting to keep is not what the rest of us were voting to delete. If I were the closing administrator, I'd delete the whole thing anyway, regardless of the changes. If someone wants to actually start an article about the 2005 film, great. Mandsford (talk) 23:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
    • My gender has nothing to do with the value, or lack thereof, of my arguments. Please discuss content, not personalities. Please refrain from making criticisms of others personalities based on their gender. Geo Swan (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
And your gender has nothing to do with my criticism either. Men and women shouldn't be encouraging high school kids to submit joke articles. The "rewrite" made it look like the original nominator didn't know what he/she was talking about. Mandsford (talk) 01:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
If my gender has nothing to do with your criticism, why bring it up?
I have done my best to make my points without being offensive. I think I have a right to expect the other participants in this discussion to do their best to avoid being offensive. Geo Swan (talk) 03:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Pairadox, thank you for spotting and nominating an obvious hoax. Whatever the closing administrator decides, you did the right thing. Mandsford (talk) 05:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Mandsford.
Geo Swan, the only reference to your gender that I see is Mandsford referring to you by a female pronoun. Are you really going to cry gender bias over use of the word she?!?
For what it's worth, your original posts were extremely offensive. You claimed that I hadn't done more than 30 seconds of research, you lumped me together with "self-appointed quality-control patrolers [un]willing undertake some of the basic, simple, obvious maintenance tasks rather than jump straight to nominations for deletion," and inferred that I did not excercise due dilligence. That's pretty damn offensive. But you know what? It doesn't matter. We got rid of a hoax article, we will probably end up with a stub for a real movie, and nobody died. If Geo Swan has learned something about civility and jumping to conclusions, then it's a win-win-win-win. If not, well, three out of four isn't bad. Pairadox (talk) 05:45, 12 January 2008 (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.