408:
television? Those films may belong in context of the producer's or actor's articles, but as independent articles, there is no way. Most often these films are filler from the back of the archive used to capture ad revenue when they know they can't compete with other channels.). Also, you are pushing this conversation towards a meta discussions on the purpose of
Knowledge and its rules. In general, the community has agreed GNG is the one and only real policy that should influence which content maintains independent articles. The only reason to
373:
444:
Your contention that "the community has agreed GNG is the one and only real policy that should influence which content maintains independent articles" is not a precise statement. The GNG is a guideline not a policy, and for valid reasons. What the community HAS agreed to, as is refelcted at the top
407:
You are arguing for general notability via field specific issues (for example, I interpret the screening of a film on TV as having no validity in a
Notability conversation, my experience speaks quite to the opposite: have you seen the kinds of clearly non-notable crap that makes its way on American
432:
We're both admins and work different areas of the project, so no insult was intended. My experience and familiarity with film were offered to someone who admitted to being "not particularly familiar with film topics." Thank you for pulling out your own "experience card". And while you may have
359:
You're welcome. I am speaking as an active senior
Knowledge editor and not as a co-ordinator of project film when I make my guideline and policy supported statement above. To reinterate: while the GNG is a wonderful tool, it is not the sole determinant for what may or may not be of worth to this
344:
Thank you for the improvement, I am not particularly familiar with film topics, and was not aware of those particular sources. The claims to notability that are now in the article may propel it into meeting GNG, though it was not apparent from any of the databases or other materials I saw in the
403:
in future conversations. Besides, I have 3 years on you, with many more edits, and am an admin, besides having taught many people how to interpret the community in
Outreach events. Interpretation of our policies is widely varient, which someone with your experience should know: every editor on
440:
be merged to those director's article if stubby, we do not do so if the target would be overburdened or if doing so requires the removal of encyclopdic information and limits a reader's understanding of a topic. If "crap" cannot be determined as somehow notable, then "crap" will not have an
310:
We would not expect that this pre-internet film 1970 film would have the same ongoing and persistant press and coverage of a recent blockbuster... and no, this article on a 1970 film will likely never be GA of even FA... but as an encyclopdia we do well to serve our readers by
550:
per above argument by
Schmidt. This seems to be one of those movie articles that doesn't have the surplus of sources that others might (partially because it was released pre-Internet and wasn't a big mega film), but still meets notability guidelines in other ways.
345:
initial search or the initial article. I am not completely convinced, but if multiple other users find that satisfying, the
Deletion review will have served its purpose in provoking adequate information about the film to become captured on the wiki,
452:
even in absence of SIGCOV. In looking through the other end of the lens... if the GNG "were" the "only" determinant, why have SNGs at all? The SNGs were created by the community to address those instances where exceptions to the GNG might be
197:
Long unreferenced and orphaned article about a film that compiles scenes from multiple older films. doesn't appear particularly notable, and none of the sources I am finding on Google appear more then mentions that it exists.
481:...So my conviction toward notability is through consideration of community established SNGs: When looking at films that predate the internet by decades, and in the absence of SIGCOV, we ARE allowed to consider its
166:
477:
is not to be used in case of "a serious impasse"... that's for dispute resolution. IAR is to be used to improve the project... and more often than not it is the using of it that can lead to an impasse and
415:
I really appreciate your experience and the quality of the content you produce, and hope the consensus from other editors will point to how GNG should be interpreted in regards to this article,
445:
of each guideline, is that guidelines are not writ in stone, are to be used with common sense, and are open to the consideration of exceptions that improve that encyclopedia.
396:
I don't really want to argue about this, but am afraid you are approaching this from a very narrow perspective, so thought I would highlight why I think that is the case:
520:
You may rest assured that I will continue improving articles, and hope that by doing so I might influence newer editors in how to create something to serve the project.
121:
160:
275:
457:
429:
What you see as "narrow perpective" is my using the "wider perespective" of judging a topic notability through a wider and not a narrower perspective.
448:
Toward common sense and exceptions, the SNGs were created to address those times when the GNG is not so certain but a topic might be considered
360:
encyclopedia and its readers... specially when considering films that predate the internet by decades. We might even consider that besides its
433:
experience in topics other than film, it is still important that I stress for others that the GNG is not the only determinant of notability.
456:
And worth sharing in case I am called a rabid inclusionist (its happened), is that I am always willing to opine a delete for film articles
126:
17:
466:... and a fact being cited to a reliable source for mandated verifiability purposes does not require that such source itself "
470:" be SIGCOV... oh it could be, and fine if it were... buit while related, notability and verifiabilty are not the same thing.
300:
A stub, sure... but an article on a film that itself covers some of the very earliest of silent film comedey. While the
94:
89:
181:
577:
98:
148:
409:
600:
529:
388:
332:
81:
40:
57:
572:
piece on the initial release, and some of the other refs, the article meets our notability guidelines, now.
307:
they were easily addressable (even the copyvio), and even a few minutes time showed the topic as improvable.
573:
399:
You shouldn't be pulling the experience card. That is not at all an appropriate approach to AFD, remember
142:
596:
556:
260:
232:
36:
522:
381:
325:
138:
581:
560:
532:
424:
391:
354:
335:
289:
264:
250:
236:
207:
174:
63:
53:
400:
312:
188:
285:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
595:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
552:
420:
350:
256:
246:
228:
203:
502:
369:
509:
it being considered one of the director's very best efforts. We can determine this film
372:(1917-1974) and by its being considered "one of compiler Youngson's very best efforts",
301:
154:
517:
facts, even without SIGCOV for a 42-year-old pre-internet less-than-blockbuster film.
494:
482:
474:
365:
361:
320:
316:
85:
223:
281:
115:
404:
Knowledge has wide and varied experience on solving content problems on the wiki.
514:
486:
463:
449:
416:
376:
346:
242:
199:
368:
after initial release, that in its being the final feature film project of
77:
69:
226:(see "Reviews, Comments, Communications, and Other Content" section).
323:
of what does or does not improve this encyclopdia for its readers.
589:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
436:
While certainly all the separate film articles of any director
412:, would be if we reach a serious impass, which we are not at.
501:
it being the final feature film project of notable director
222:, which, although user-submitted, is covered in the IMDB's
255:
Sorry, I misread the ToU. It is still plagiarism though.
308:
305:
111:
107:
103:
173:
379:facts, even without SIGCOV for a 42-year-old film.
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
603:). No further edits should be made to this page.
315:our cinematic history. And while certainly the
459:if notability cannot be asserted and verified.
462:So the only actual "policy" involved here is
220:is plagiarism of the plot summary of the IMDB
187:
8:
274:Note: This debate has been included in the
568:With the Maltin four-star mini-review, the
273:
276:list of Film-related deletion discussions
241:Further reason to delete then, methinks,
375:it is notable enough based upon those
7:
218:is a copyright violation because its
24:
319:serves the project well, it is
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
364:, or it re-airing comercially
1:
620:
582:22:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
561:19:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
533:21:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
425:20:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
392:04:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
355:01:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
336:00:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
290:17:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
265:16:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
251:16:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
237:16:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
208:15:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
64:00:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
592:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
497:after initial release,
493:re-airing comercially
321:not the sole arbiter
410:WP:Ignore all rules
401:Knowledge:Equality
48:The result was
574:Shawn in Montreal
513:based upon those
495:more than 5 years
483:historical import
366:more than 5 years
362:historical import
292:
279:
216:The article text
611:
594:
525:
384:
328:
280:
192:
191:
177:
129:
119:
101:
60:
34:
619:
618:
614:
613:
612:
610:
609:
608:
607:
601:deletion review
590:
523:
503:Robert Youngson
473:And by the by,
382:
370:Robert Youngson
326:
302:nominated state
134:
125:
92:
76:
73:
62:
58:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
617:
615:
606:
605:
585:
584:
563:
544:
543:
542:
541:
540:
539:
538:
537:
536:
535:
518:
511:notable enough
479:
471:
460:
454:
450:worthy of note
446:
442:
434:
430:
413:
405:
397:
339:
338:
294:
293:
271:
270:
269:
268:
267:
195:
194:
131:
72:
67:
56:
54:The Bushranger
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
616:
604:
602:
598:
593:
587:
586:
583:
579:
575:
571:
567:
564:
562:
558:
554:
549:
546:
545:
534:
531:
530:
527:
526:
519:
516:
512:
508:
504:
500:
496:
492:
488:
484:
480:
476:
472:
469:
465:
461:
458:
455:
451:
447:
443:
439:
435:
431:
428:
427:
426:
422:
418:
414:
411:
406:
402:
398:
395:
394:
393:
390:
389:
386:
385:
378:
374:
371:
367:
363:
358:
357:
356:
352:
348:
343:
342:
341:
340:
337:
334:
333:
330:
329:
322:
318:
314:
309:
306:
303:
299:
296:
295:
291:
287:
283:
277:
272:
266:
262:
258:
254:
253:
252:
248:
244:
240:
239:
238:
234:
230:
227:
225:
219:
215:
212:
211:
210:
209:
205:
201:
190:
186:
183:
180:
176:
172:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
140:
137:
136:Find sources:
132:
128:
123:
117:
113:
109:
105:
100:
96:
91:
87:
83:
79:
75:
74:
71:
68:
66:
65:
61:
59:One ping only
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
591:
588:
570:Windsor Star
569:
565:
547:
528:
521:
510:
506:
498:
490:
487:verifiabilty
467:
437:
387:
380:
331:
324:
297:
224:Terms of Use
221:
217:
213:
196:
184:
178:
170:
163:
157:
151:
145:
135:
49:
47:
31:
28:
553:Tokyogirl79
453:considered.
304:had issues,
257:Jason Quinn
229:Jason Quinn
161:free images
515:verifiable
377:verifiable
313:preserving
597:talk page
282:• Gene93k
37:talk page
599:or in a
524:Schmidt,
485:and the
441:article.
383:Schmidt,
327:Schmidt,
122:View log
78:4 Clowns
70:4 Clowns
39:or in a
214:Comment
167:WP refs
155:scholar
95:protect
90:history
505:, and
489:of it
478:WP:DR.
475:WP:IAR
417:Sadads
347:Sadads
317:WP:GNG
243:Sadads
200:Sadads
139:Google
99:delete
438:might
182:JSTOR
143:books
127:Stats
116:views
108:watch
104:links
16:<
578:talk
566:Keep
557:talk
548:Keep
468:must
464:WP:V
421:talk
351:talk
298:Keep
286:talk
261:talk
247:talk
233:talk
204:talk
175:FENS
149:news
112:logs
86:talk
82:edit
50:keep
189:TWL
124:•
120:– (
580:)
559:)
507:3)
499:2)
491:1)
423:)
353:)
288:)
278:.
263:)
249:)
235:)
206:)
169:)
114:|
110:|
106:|
102:|
97:|
93:|
88:|
84:|
52:.
576:(
555:(
419:(
349:(
284:(
259:(
245:(
231:(
202:(
193:)
185:·
179:·
171:·
164:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
141:(
133:(
130:)
118:)
80:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.