Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1 a Minute

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Courcelles 03:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1 a Minute

edit
1 a Minute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NFF (future films): yet-unreleased, seemingly self-produced film WP:RS Closeapple (talk) 07:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Closeapple (talk) 07:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteDelete or WP:INCUBATE (see below) per my own nomination. Specific arguments against article meeting notability guidelines:
    1. The big one: WP:NFF section says not-yet-unreleased films "should not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines".
    2. No references establish notability: all references appear to either be either (a) blogs of no known importance (or editorial control); (b) participants' own web sites; (c) mentions of the future film in passing as part of coverage of press releases discussing Gujral's or someone else's cancer treatment.
    3. Puffery "magic word" insertions, like claiming it "stars" 14 people without explaining what "stars" means. {{Clarify}} tag on this has been removed at least once. Maybe just interview subjects, but then it claims to be a "docu-drama", whatever that means this week. Anyway, 14 different famous people can't "star" in a film in the way most people understand "starring" in a film. (Same happened with the claim that it is somehow a "Hollywood" movie with no evidence or clarification. Maybe someone's mailbox has a postal address vaguely near Los Angeles?)
    4. Release company "UniGlobe Entertainment" appears to be Gujral's own company, so this appears to be effectively a self-released film.
    5. Puffery like "This is the largest release to date for a cancer related film" despite it not actually having been released. (And cancer was a major theme in Magnolia and Donsol for example.)
    6. Preponderance of more puffery about this actress and subjects surrounding her on Wikipedia, some by single-focus accounts, make any claim in this article suspect. --Closeapple (talk) 07:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will vote to keep the article if you can clean it up and make it suit WP:MOS. Nilocia (talk) 21:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have a full time job and much as i would love to keep fixing this article (as I think it is definitely deserving of a page; i'm not sure what qualifies as credible sources if not majors like USA Today); I just dont have the time to devote this much time to it. so, I am deleting it. Its a shame! 99.6.13.199 (talk) 00:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addressing the nominator's comments:
    1. He writes "WP:NFF section says not-yet-unreleased films "should not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines"." This is Incorrect, as NFF speaks toward films that have not begun principle filming. This one has, and its release in imminent.
    2. He writes "No references establish notability" An easily addressable issue, as curent state is not the same as potential state. And having potential for improvement does not mean we should not allow it to be improved. additional sources have already been added, and more are available. AFD is not for cleanup, though it often forces just that.
    3. He writes "Puffery "magic word" insertions." An addressable conern and a reason to improve through regular editing, not toss because its initial version was flowery. Yes, it has been tagged for a bit, but now its at AFd and is finally getting the attention it merits.
    4. He writes "Release company "UniGlobe Entertainment" appears to be Gurjal's own company." With respects... So what? Wikipedia does not judge a film by its production company, but by the coverage it has that meets WP:GNG and WP:NF, whether the sources have been aded or not. See presumption of notability.
    5. He writes "Puffery like "This is the largest release to date for a cancer related film" despite it not actually having been released." An addressable conern to be addressed through regular editing whenever possible. Addressable issues are not cause for deletion.
    6. He writes "Preponderance of more puffery..." An addressable conern to be addressed through regular editing whenever possible. Addressable issues are not cause for deletion. Its budget or its filmmaker do not matter. It's the coverage to meet WP:NF that does. So, that said....
  • Keep, or at the very least, Incubate Principle filming has commenced. The film IS getting coverage. The topic itself is worthy of note. The participation of notable individuals is guranteeing additional coverage. The films release is imminent. If kept, it will be improved. If incubated, continued work will be underdone. This one will not remain a stub... and in showing the author the method, rather than the boot, I will be cleaning up, expanding, and properly sourcing it myself shortly. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have finished fixing up the article and adding some sources here and there. If the film is coming out in October, then they have finished principle filming by now and are likely on post-editing, if not completely finished. The article certainly meets notability requirements due to its sources and would also meet #2 on Other evidence in WP:NF. I see no problem in terms of notability with this article. SilverserenC 03:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Thank you all for helping out. When do we know if this article is being kept or deleted? Is there a time span after which the votes are tallied? Thanks to all...
    • Also a note to Close Apple: you write above..."a bollywood thing called "kaante"...i would caution you against using verbage that can come across potentially "racist" (for want of a better phrase) - whatever your feelings may be about Bollywood (and you are certainly welcome to personal opinions); to diss it publicly in an open fashion and be deliberately disdainful as you have been above, is in extremely poor taste at best and downright obnoxious at worst. Sorry just my two cents... 99.6.13.199 (talk) 02:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: WP:INCUBATE does sound like a decent option. But to address MichaelQSchmidt's and 99.6.13.199's issues about notability:
    1. The WP:NFF guideline is for films that have begun principal filming: "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 the notability guidelines." (Emphasis added by me.) (On the subject of films that haven't begun principal photography, WP:NFF says they shouldn't have an article at all. That no longer applies here though.)
    2. Notability still hasn't been satisfied, in my opinion; and I don't think it will be addressable until at least the premiere, if that. That is why WP:NFF talks about films that haven't been publicly released yet. Remember that it's not just WP:RS that establishes notability; it has to be WP:RS coverage that is "substantial". For WP:MOVIE (unsure whether this means all movies or just released ones), the guidelines point out notability sources as "books, television documentaries, full-length featured newspaper articles from large circulation newspapers, full-length magazine reviews and criticism". To enumerate the current references (as they relate to notability guidelines):
      • USA Today Who's News Blog: reliable, but this isn't USA Today as you think of it; Who's News is a blog. To be explicit: This is an article that USA Today determined wasn't important enough to make it into the newspaper, which is why it's in the blog instead.
      • MTV: Passing mention; not an article about the film.
      • Olivia Newton-John: press release by involved party.
      • ContactMusic: 4-sentence article of unknown source; also appears to be some site that lets lots of people post articles under usernames, but I'm not familiar with it.
      • Hindustan Times sourced from Press Trust of India: usually HT and PTI is reliable, but note that the article's source is a press release; and it is (purportedly) primarily about Gurjal working on the film while undergoing cancer treatment. Certainly not a full-length featured article in the HT newspaper itself.
      • NetIndian: WP:RS status uncertain. It is a full-length treatment, but not in a large-circulation newspaper, and primarily about the future of the film itself sourced from involved people and press releases.
      • IndiaTimes Movies: Associated with the Times of India, but this is a different website, and no evidence this ever hit the newspaper itself; it's from a subsite; and I notice the picture and alleged direct quotes from Priya Dutt are exactly the same as NetIndian. Likely a press release rewrite, and not in the Times newspaper itself.
      • SmasHits: non-print, not known WP:RS, paragraph mixed in with other news.
      • Komen for the Cure: promo by organization that gets kickback from ticket sales.
    3. My pointing out WP:Puffery was not intended to show a cause of non-notability; they were to point out that what appeared to be causes for notability ("Hollywood", "stars") were actually just puffery to get people to presume this was a major studio film starring A-list actors, for which notability was inevitable, which isn't quite the case.
    4. UniGlobe = Gurjal: Same reason as #3; I was trying to make sure nobody accidentally presumed notability based on it being a major studio production.
    5. "This is the largest release to date for a cancer related film": I singled this claim out because (a) it looked like another specific claim of notability (#3 again) which was demonstrably false on its face, since it's not even a release at all yet; (b) it's a pretty narrow thing to claim notability from; and (c) the source (NetIndian) says it picked up that claim directly from a press release from the producers, and the article says "cancer-themed film of this nature" (whatever that means), so the claim was actually broader than the source.
    6. Preponderance of puffery: #3 again. I just wanted to make sure that AfD commenters knew that the claims were part of a string of not-quite-neutral claims across multiple articles, and digging all the way down to the sources would be needed to determine WP:MOVIE/WP:NFF.
On the "Bollywood thing": Yeah, I shouldn't have phrased it that way. I don't personally think Bollywood is illegitimate; the reason my phrasing was dismissive was that the article itself was POV-pushing about North American credibility.
All that said: This film could end up notable, depending on how the press treats it; I just think it's neither notable nor imminently-notable right now (end of August) and that the article is premature (which is relevant) and possibly written to cause coverage rather than as a result of it (which may not be as relevant). I think MichaelQSchmidt's idea of WP:INCUBATE may be a good one: by the middle of November, when the "premiere" is over and we see whether it gets a normal theater run, we should know whether this is was a major release, or an "event" covered primarily by people who get paid per online post. --Closeapple (talk) 08:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia notability is determined by coverage... not by studio or correctable puffery or "wait and see"... and please note, "significant coverage" per guideline definition need not also be substantial coverage. Concerns with style and tone are to be addressed through regular editing whenever possible. Deletion is a last resort, and this is just a tad too imminent for incubation to be neccessary. And while appreciating your acknowledging that incubation is an option, I still find enough reliable sources speaking about this production directly and in detail, to show it as an imminent production that merits inclusion. Because of the topic and the folks invloved, this production is getting the coverage to satisfy WP:NF... some brief, some lengthy... but all speaking toward this production or its participants: Daily News & Analysis (1), Daily News & Analysis (2), Gay and Lesbian Times (1), Desert Sun, El Diario de Yucatán, Noticine, OneIndia, IBNLive, MTV, SheWired, NDTV, Splash, Times of India (1), USA Today, Contact Music, Hindustan Times, NetIndian News Network, Times of India (2), etc. So without press releases or blogs, there's enough... specially for a film due out in just a few weeks. And yes... I read your tome above where you one-by-one adress the sources. A smaller detailed story on a page that shares other stories in not a dismissive, and a source does not need replication in a hardcopy in order to be credible. NetIndian News is a case in point. They service the net, and do not have the worries with paperbound distribution. That does not make them somehow unreliable. And then you call an authored short news article in Hindustan Times a press release? Jornalist Lalit K Jha might be surprised at that determination. That the release caught his attention and resulted in the article, fine... but we judge the source and author and their reputation for fact-checking and acuracy... and do not judge by what might have inspired their article. RS is RS. Has the HT article stated itself as a press release, you'd be right... but it did not, and the author himself revealed his motivation for his fact-checked and accurate report. Nice of him. And an assumption that a report picked up by another news as Times of India and NetIndian is somehow suspect? No one questions it when an API or UPI news article is picked up by other agencies. That Indian news sources do the same is common practice. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I WILL BE DELETING THIS BOX TONIGHT (GIVEN THE 7 DAY PERIOD) SINCE THE CONSENSUS SEEMS TO BE TO "KEEP". CLOSEAPPLE: LET ME KNOW IF YOU HAVE THOUGHTS...99.6.13.199 (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait. Please. Two things you need understand:
  1. All caps in responses is unneccessary, for your comments are indeed being read, and your research appreciated.
  2. AFD discussions are usually closed after 7 days, yes... but NOT by parties involved in the discussion. Please wait for an uninvolved editor or admi to do the close. Patience
Regards, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/1_a_Minute&oldid=1080236756"