- The Heaven Project (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)
The article clearly fails WP:NFF and as was discussed in the AfD, the few sources, although reliable, were nothing more than notices that the film was being made. It's an independent film and definitely hasn't gotten an pre-release or during-production "hype" media coverage. Closer stated production began in April 2007, so it meets the threshold for WP:NFF. Disagreeing in that WP:NFF specifically states Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles, unless the production itself is notable per notability guidelines. Even per the sources, those being nothing more than what could be construed as re-written press releases, this film also does not meet the notability guidelines as closer stated. This AfD should be overturned and the film's article deleted. ALLSTARecho 03:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I'm the closing admin. I'm not a film expert – just an admin trying to pitch in – but I took quite a bit of time to look over the references, the ELs given in the AFD discussion, and the discussion itself prior to closing the debate. I still feel this article meets WP:NFF and the notability standards, although not by a huge margin. There are three references in the article that are available online: the Hollywood Reporter piece has some basics, and the Variety articles back up the article's statements concerning its production and history. I guess we disagree about the nature of Variety as a reliable source - it seems fine to me given the lack of evidence to the contrary. References don't necessarily have to be "hype" to be verifiable and reliable. Add the clear consensus to keep the article in the AFD discussion, and I think I'll stand by my original conclusion. Thanks for letting me know about this review. - KrakatoaKatie 04:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Relist with reasoning per KrakatoaKatie. Future film articles are created all the time and this article appears to be quite well done with relatively good sourcing, which is about as m uch as you can expect for a future film. We must remember that Wikipedia is an ongoing project and that improvements to this article will naturally be made closer to the release date. Ekantik talk 04:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- "Relist" means to send the article back to WP:AFD for a second discussion. I'm fairly certain that Katie is arguing that her closure should be "endorsed" and the article should be kept. --JayHenry (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Yes, what JayHenry said. - KrakatoaKatie 18:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse keep The discussion on the AFD (which I was involved in) covered all important points, there was coverage of WP:V and WP:N and clear consensus that they were met so the admin's decision looks fine to me. This is a review of process, not another discussion as to whether the article is notable (that discussion has been had at AFD). The process looks fine, both in terms of the discussion and the closing. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Keep I'm assuming good faith, but I completely endorse Allstar's rationale above for deletion. In the AfD, the central issue was the level of significant coverage to establish the notability of this pre-release film, not the reliability of Variety or other side issues. Also, the two sources are not mainstream sources. While it's clear that there was no consensus to delete in the AfD, it's also equally clear there was no consensus to keep. There were four editors that opposed keeping, by expressing serious, significant, and well supported concerns about the notability of the production, lead by Allstar and myself more vocally. That's hardly a clear consensus to keep. Even if there had been consensus to keep, that consensus would not trump WP:NFF and general notability requirements. Even some of the keepers and the closer admitted coverage was minimal. If the AfD is not overturned, the AfD should be relisted, or at the very least, reclosed as "No consensus, defaulting to keep". — Becksguy (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral. I'd agree with Becksguy that the delete arguements do seem stronger, and that the coverage may not be significant enough to satisfy WP:N. However, it's pretty clear that there's no consensus either way. Overturning the close as no consensus, default to keep seems a little like a waste of time, though, since I assume more sources will exist to cement notability in a month or two. A keep consensus is easy enough to read (that's what I first thought), so I really can't say there are any issues with the close other than that I disagree with it. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse closure The purpose of DRV is not to get a second chance at rehashing your arguments at AFD. Katie reasonably interpreted the discussion as a keep closure. To address the specific argument urging reconsideration: that Katie misinterpreted WP:NFF. I disagree. The operative information here is "unless the production itself is notable per notability guidelines." The notability guideline states, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Variety and The Hollywood Reporter are independent of the subject, and don't "reprint press releases". Possibly this nomination was based on a misunderstanding of the importance, reliability and extremely high regard in which these two publications are held. They are canonical; the most reliable sources of the film industry. --JayHenry (talk) 23:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment This discussion is about the closing process. I'm AGF, but the issue here is not the reliability of the two sources (as Allstar said in the nomination), even though they are not mainstream sources, rather the two central issues are as follows: (1) That there was no significant coverage in either source to establish notability of the production (significant being the operative word), and that the closing process is required to follow policy and guidelines as to notability which trump AfD !votes. (2) That there was no clear consensus to keep in the AfD with four established editors providing well reasoned, strong, and significant opposition. AGF, the level of opposition was misinterpreted by KrakatoaKatie, that is, there was no clear consensus either way. For example, if it had been just the nominator, and two new editors (without any AFD experience) in opposition, I wouldn't contest consensus. Although notability is another issue. From WP:DGFA: Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). — Becksguy (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- I apologize that my previous comment was so muddled that the good faith of my comment relied upon assumption! The nominator of the AFD and DRV said in the DRV that the sources were "nothing more than what could be construed as re-written press releases". In direct response to this specific statement, I observed that Variety and The Hollywood Reporter are extremely reliable sources that don't rewrite press releases. The reliability of a source is actually an important way to determine significance, much in the way that a New York Times story about an accomplishment indicates greater significance than a similar story in the Custard County Courier Weekly. In the end, the question is this: did Katie make a reasonable closure? As someone who did not participate in the AFD, it's my estimation that her closure is quite reasonable. --JayHenry (talk) 04:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- No apologies needed. I had intended to make a general statement of assumption of good faith, and I try hard to do so, but it became rather muddled also as I was editing. Sorry if you thought it was in response to your comment. — Becksguy (talk) 07:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse closure, there was a strong enough consensus in the AfD discussion that the sources provided were sufficient to meet notability guidelines that I would not expect any closing admin to delete the article. I agree that well reasoned opinions were put forward to delete, but the keep votes were by no means ungrounded in policy - virtually all of them explicitly considered the issue of sourcing and concluded that the article does not fail WP:NFF. I will grant you that the discussion could equally have been closed as "no consensus", but there would be no practical difference if it was. --Stormie (talk) 10:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse closure. The closing admin correctly read consensus. Given the tenor of the discussion it may be the guideline itself that is at fault. It is meant to be descriptive of Wikipedia practice rather than a firm rule to be applied. The article clearly meets the WP:V policy so the question of whether its level of notability is enough to make it "encyclopedic" is a pragmatic question that is amenable to local consensus, even if a specific guideline has been written. Eluchil404 (talk) 13:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse closure Precisely how much coverage is required for it to count as "significant" is a matter for consensus at AfD, not something that can be or is rigidly defined by policy. There was clearly no consensus here that the coverage was sufficiently insignificant to merit deletion, so the closure was correct. As lifebaka and Stormie point out, the difference between a no consensus close and a keep close is not worth arguing about. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 12:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Leaving aside the issue of significant coverage/notability for the moment, the difference between a no consensus close and a keep close is highly important as an indication of the different paths the process takes, even if the end result for both paths is that the article is kept. That is the essence of process. Otherwise, why have a no consensus close? I'm assuming good faith on the part of the closing admin and others, but the keep path effectively, although unintentionally, gave the appearance of devalued and ignored strong deletion arguments by established editors and the no consensus path would have validated them, with the the article being kept either way. I agree that there was no consensus to delete (no one is claiming that there was), but neither was there consensus to keep. That is, there was no "clear consensus" either way. So yes, it is worth arguing about as a value principle for process. — Becksguy (talk) 15:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Reply. Although the difference between "No Consensus" and "Keep" is real and sometimes important, DRV has never forced a change of one to the other, and is unlikely to do so in the future. Process is not a straight jacket that binds Wikipedians but rather a consensus on the way things are generally done. Even a "Keep" closure can be revisited after a few months or so. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
|
