422:"Additional Criteria" is not necessary, as "Basic Criteria" is already met, i.e. significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. "Additional Criteria" do not need to be met, as the subjects of the article are notable for two events: the making of So Bright Is the View, and the creation of the Romanian Independent Film Collective, the first democratic film collective in post-Revolution Romania, where independent, non-state financed and non-corporate financed film is a rarity. Nevertheless, the "Additional Criteria" is also met under WP:Filmmaker. Official Selection of an FIAPF Category A film festival is a substantial part and distinguishes films of artistic merit from films there for the "film market" and other non-Official Selection films (e.g. commercial premieres, retrospectives). Biruitorul is incorrect to say that the film is one out of 100, as the list he provided is not a list of films in Official Selection but of all films presented. He misunderstands film festival terminology. WP:Filmmaker therefore met. Of course most of the articles are going to be about their film, because they're filmmakers.
592:
have removed the alleged blog and the somewhat redundant sources). Therefore WP:GNG are met. No need for
Additional Guidelines once WP:GNG are met. Furthermore, the subjects of the article do not meet the three necessary conditions that "each" need to be fulfilled to call for merging under WP:BLP1E. Size of the article is a fallacious argument, per Knowledge (XXG) rules (WP:ASZ). Finally, at least two out of the three (and possibly three out of three) "reasons to avoid merging" are present: Merging would be clunky with inappropriate biographical information appearing on the film's article, and the topics are discrete subjects "even though they might be short" (WP:MERGEREASON). To say an article looks good or looks too small are fallacious arguments (WP:ATA). The rules of Knowledge (XXG) should be read and respected to maintain an open, inclusive and enthused community and to prevent arbitrariness.
491:- are there any sources that contain biographical information on the brother beyond a very brief outline of their film career? If not, then merging to their only film seems like a good idea. Irregardless of notability, if there is no additional RS information about the brother than what is already in the article it doesn't make much sense to have separate film & biographical articles. That isn't a judgement on importance (which is what notability often means in the real world, but NOT what it means on Knowledge (XXG)), just a reflection of the best way to organize our content. --
756:). For those of you who aren’t Romanian, it’s Romania’s equivalent of Reuters or AP. The article isn’t too long but it references the brothers and their history, going beyond the film. The brothers were notable enough even to be named in the title, which makes sense because they are quite well-known among Romanians in the art film/indie circuit. Hopefully this will end the discussion. But I would’ve liked us all to have had a kinder debate. I think I might have made some mistakes, and I’m sorry. I’m new here and so I’m clumsy.
799:
down the sources you think are redundant. So at this point are the sources reliable? Yes. Now the only question is whether all the information from the two pages should be on two pages or one. If you think it's appropriate for biographical information on the directors to be present on the page about the film, then that's an opinion you and I don't share, and I've addressed these arguments above in my "Keep" Vote. Let's just agree to disagree for now and let the admins decide. :)
205:, itself a film of borderline notability. The entirety of what exists about them - much of this material being of dubious quality - revolves around said film. If they go on to make other films, have other achievements, or receive coverage independent of the film, we should perhaps reconsider, but for now, a standalone article simply isn't justified. All that can be said about them can easily be said in the article on the film, and they do not meet the criteria set out at
230:). Finally, whether the film is good or bad is not relevant. Whether it is a blockbuster hit or an indie/arthouse flick is also not determinative. However, the film's premiere in the Official Selection of an FIAPF Category A film festival (a "significant exhibition") and its subsequent acquisition for distribution in North America is indicative, for better or worse.
862:
beginning of their creative efforts. Short of an explicit biography, you can't ask for much more. If you want to help expand this admittedly short page, then please go ahead as there is more than enough information to do so. Lastly, as a matter of fact, "their opinion on the film" is never even stated.
798:
They are not mentioned "in passing." Half of the sentences in that article refer to them! More than half if you include the title! They are a substantial part of the article. Yes, I agree that there could be some duplicate information between this and the other sources, but if you want, you can take
282:
point 4, but I'm afraid it isn't going to fly. The clause provides that "the person's work.... has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition". Now, it's true that the MIFF is a significant exhibition, but it's not true, at all, that the
Florescus' film formed "a substantial part" thereof.
591:
WP:GNG and WP:BASIC are met: Multiple independent reliable sources. If someone disputes this, let him call out a specific source and name it as unreliable. The nominator has only claimed that one is a blog. The rest are reliable and even the one he has named doesn't appear to be a blog. (Update: I
221:
Notability is determined by the Basic
Criteria. If the basic criteria has not been met, then reference should be made to the Additional Criteria. The Basic Criteria are as follows: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which
861:
Half of the article refers to them. The third paragraph is about, of all things, their educational background and about their aesthetic style. The fourth paragraph refers to their production method and views on independent filmmaking. The last paragraph refers to their ethnic origins and the
785:
primarily with the directors of the film. Yes, they are mentioned in passing, and they should be mentioned in passing in the article on their film, but thus far, nothing you've brought forth either deals primarily with the brothers, or validates a separate article based on any reasonable
841:
The only mention of the brothers in this piece of news (other than the one that cites their opinion on the film) is in the last phrase that states "The Franco-Romanian twins
Michael and Joel Florescu have begun their filmmaking projects in Bucharest, as part of the
665:
That's not right. Check the timing of all the posts. There was no "quid pro quo." I asked for his input. I also asked for other people's input above, all of which turned out to be against my vote. You seem to jump to negative conclusions easily.
772:
No, this will certainly not "end the discussion", which is scheduled to run through April 1 (one week after it began). Because the link you've added, based on a press release, more or less includes the exact same text as
161:
287:
played at that festival, and only one of theirs - indeed, the only film they've ever made - was exhibited. In no sense does that constitute a "substantial part". Especially as their film was not even in
226:). The coverage qualifies, with multiple independent and reputable sources from various publications (none of which is dubious, and none which qualifies as a "self-published or questionable source"; see
372:
781:, both of which were already cited in the article — in other words, you've added nothing new. Like the filmreporter and cinemarx pages, this article deals with the film and its screening at the MIFF,
846:, a group of professionals and amateurs in the movie business, that was assembled and is functioning based on democratic principles." - actually, most of this phrase is about the group they are with.
292:
778:
308:
968:
114:
155:
352:
867:"Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." WP:GNG. The admins may use Google Translate to verify.
332:
446:
I am the creator of both articles. Biruitorul wants to merge this article with the film, not to delete the information. I see no problem with merging the articles.
462:
I have merged the pages, in accordance with what
Biruitorul wishes. I have done my best to make it look right. There is now no need for more discussion on this.
304:
121:
752:
I’ve added a source on the
Florescu Brothers article by Mediafax. I don’t think anyone can dispute the reliability of Mediafax, a news agency (see:
702:
So, yes, we have a classic case of canvassing combined with a quid pro quo, an exchange of votes. Something that is, of course, not allowed under
311:, and the remaining two are about their uncle. So, no, the brothers have not in fact received anything remotely approaching the standards set by
774:
296:
87:
82:
91:
575:
884:
816:
609:
255:
193:
74:
17:
723:
I'm done with this particular discussion, and will wait for the closing administrator to decide what to make of the situation. -
176:
143:
909:
933:
1017:
315:. I'm still waiting to hear a plausible explanation as to why they are notable, as defined by one of our guidelines. -
40:
137:
717:
So what happened between him "promising" his vote and him voting? Nothing. Thank you for proving my point for me.
400:
998:
980:
959:
940:
888:
855:
820:
792:
766:
729:
712:
657:
631:
579:
545:
527:
500:
478:
456:
435:
404:
384:
364:
344:
321:
269:
215:
56:
133:
627:
571:
78:
872:
804:
622:. Though the article is a short stub and would hopefully be expanded in time, the sources show notability.
597:
563:
474:
243:
880:
851:
812:
762:
605:
431:
265:
251:
236:
199:
Basically, the only remotely noteworthy achievement of these two individuals consists in having directed
183:
1013:
201:
36:
70:
62:
468:
452:
396:
703:
536:, not Papercencils1, who keeps trying to short circuit the AfD and merge the article prematurely. --
541:
496:
169:
279:
206:
623:
567:
227:
149:
876:
847:
808:
758:
601:
523:
513:
427:
380:
360:
340:
261:
247:
232:
222:
are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" (see,
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1012:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
989:
To make it easier for the closing administrator, I've struck all the comments of the socks.--
284:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
927:
518:
Articles should not be merged while being discussed at AfD. Therefore, I have reverted you.
312:
300:
994:
955:
787:
724:
707:
652:
533:
464:
448:
316:
223:
210:
537:
492:
519:
376:
356:
336:
53:
697:- Paperpencils performs quid pro quo, voting where Billy Hathorn directed him to.
295:
is about the film (and is a blog post, one of those dubious sources I mentioned),
108:
921:
990:
972:
951:
912:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
753:
950:
to the film, though eventually they probably will deserve this article!
224:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Notability_%28people%29#Basic_criteria
720:
There was no "promise" to begin with. What are we arguing about here?
1006:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
685:- Billy Hathorn promises his vote and canvasses for another AfD.
192:
I proposed merging this article, but received an objection from
228:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources
395:
Their one film is not enough to establish their notability.
786:
interpretation of the biographical notability criteria. -
418:
Superseded by later keep vote with clearer rationale below
373:
list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions
694:
688:
682:
676:
648:
644:
640:
104:
100:
96:
969:
Knowledge (XXG):Sockpuppet investigations/Paperpencils
691:- Billy Hathorn votes here, delivering on his promise.
168:
196:, so I've come to AfD to hopefully sort things out.
918:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
182:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1020:). No further edits should be made to this page.
754:https://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_news_agencies
8:
371:Note: This debate has been included in the
353:list of Romania-related deletion discussions
351:Note: This debate has been included in the
331:Note: This debate has been included in the
333:list of France-related deletion discussions
370:
350:
330:
239:) 21:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)paperpencils
643:. As a quid pro quo, the canvassed user
679:- Paperpencils canvasses Billy Hathorn.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
844:Romanian Independent Film Collective
669:By all means, let's check the times.
971:are relevant to this discussion.--
24:
645:asked for a vote on another AfD
639:- this vote was canvassed: see
558:No one is discussing anything.
1:
651:by the original canvasser. -
637:Note to closing administrator
258:) 19:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
52:. Canvassed vote discarded
1037:
999:00:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
981:23:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
967:The checkuser findings at
960:20:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
889:08:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
856:07:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
821:23:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
793:23:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
767:22:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
730:23:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
713:20:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
658:20:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
632:19:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
580:18:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
546:18:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
528:17:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
501:18:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
479:13:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
457:08:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
436:06:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
405:02:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
385:19:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
365:19:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
345:19:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
322:22:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
270:19:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
216:18:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
57:07:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
941:10:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
285:Well over a hundred films
1009:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
309:this is about the film
305:this is about the film
301:this is about the film
297:this is about the film
278:That's a nice spin on
202:So Bright Is the View
194:a single-edit account
532:To clarify, it is
943:
939:
892:
875:comment added by
824:
807:comment added by
791:
728:
711:
656:
614:
600:comment added by
583:
566:comment added by
420:
397:John Pack Lambert
387:
367:
347:
320:
291:As for the rest,
260:
246:comment added by
214:
71:Florescu brothers
63:Florescu brothers
1028:
1011:
978:
965:Procedural note:
936:
930:
919:
917:
915:
913:
891:
869:
823:
801:
790:
727:
710:
655:
613:
594:
582:
560:
517:
481:
416:
319:
259:
240:
213:
187:
186:
172:
124:
112:
94:
34:
1036:
1035:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1018:deletion review
1007:
973:
944:
934:
928:
924:
908:
906:
870:
802:
595:
561:
511:
472:
241:
129:
120:
85:
69:
66:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1034:
1032:
1023:
1022:
1003:
1002:
1001:
984:
983:
962:
922:
916:
905:
904:
903:
902:
901:
900:
899:
898:
897:
896:
895:
894:
893:
864:
830:
829:
828:
827:
826:
825:
745:
744:
743:
742:
741:
740:
739:
738:
737:
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
692:
686:
680:
674:
673:
672:
671:
670:
616:
615:
555:
554:
553:
552:
551:
550:
549:
548:
504:
503:
485:
484:
483:
482:
477:comment added
425:
424:
408:
407:
389:
388:
368:
348:
327:
326:
325:
324:
289:
190:
189:
126:
65:
60:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1033:
1021:
1019:
1015:
1010:
1004:
1000:
996:
992:
988:
987:
986:
985:
982:
979:
977:
970:
966:
963:
961:
957:
953:
949:
946:
945:
942:
937:
931:
925:
914:
911:
890:
886:
882:
878:
874:
868:
865:
863:
859:
858:
857:
853:
849:
845:
840:
839:
838:
837:
836:
835:
834:
833:
832:
831:
822:
818:
814:
810:
806:
800:
796:
795:
794:
789:
784:
780:
776:
771:
770:
769:Paperpencils
768:
764:
760:
757:
755:
751:
747:
746:
731:
726:
722:
721:
719:
718:
716:
715:
714:
709:
705:
701:
700:
699:
698:
696:
693:
690:
687:
684:
681:
678:
675:
668:
667:
664:
661:
660:
659:
654:
650:
646:
642:
638:
635:
634:
633:
629:
625:
624:Billy Hathorn
621:
618:
617:
611:
607:
603:
599:
593:
590:
586:
585:
584:
581:
577:
573:
569:
568:Paperpencils1
565:
559:
547:
543:
539:
535:
531:
530:
529:
525:
521:
515:
510:
509:
508:
507:
506:
505:
502:
498:
494:
490:
487:
486:
480:
476:
470:
466:
463:
460:
459:
458:
454:
450:
447:
445:
441:
440:
439:
438:paperpencils
437:
433:
429:
423:
419:
415:
414:
410:
409:
406:
402:
398:
394:
391:
390:
386:
382:
378:
374:
369:
366:
362:
358:
354:
349:
346:
342:
338:
334:
329:
328:
323:
318:
314:
310:
306:
302:
298:
294:
290:
286:
281:
277:
276:
275:
274:
273:
272:Paperpencils
271:
267:
263:
257:
253:
249:
245:
238:
234:
231:
229:
225:
218:
217:
212:
208:
204:
203:
197:
195:
185:
181:
178:
175:
171:
167:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
139:
135:
132:
131:Find sources:
127:
123:
119:
116:
110:
106:
102:
98:
93:
89:
84:
80:
76:
72:
68:
67:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1008:
1005:
975:
964:
947:
907:
877:Paperpencils
871:— Preceding
866:
860:
843:
809:Paperpencils
803:— Preceding
797:
782:
759:Paperpencils
749:
748:
662:
636:
619:
602:Paperpencils
596:— Preceding
588:
587:
562:— Preceding
557:
556:
514:Paperpencils
488:
473:— Preceding
461:
443:
442:
428:Paperpencils
426:
421:
417:
412:
411:
392:
288:competition.
262:Paperpencils
248:Paperpencils
242:— Preceding
233:Paperpencils
220:
219:
200:
198:
191:
179:
173:
165:
158:
152:
146:
140:
130:
117:
49:
47:
31:
28:
156:free images
974:Jezebel's
929:have a cup
788:Biruitorul
725:Biruitorul
708:Biruitorul
704:WP:CANVASS
653:Biruitorul
534:Marian1981
465:Marian1981
449:Marian1981
317:Biruitorul
211:Biruitorul
1014:talk page
649:was given
538:ThaddeusB
493:ThaddeusB
377:• Gene93k
357:• Gene93k
337:• Gene93k
280:WP:ARTIST
207:WP:ARTIST
37:talk page
1016:or in a
948:Redirect
910:Relisted
885:contribs
873:unsigned
848:- Andrei
817:contribs
805:unsigned
647:, which
610:contribs
598:unsigned
576:contribs
564:unsigned
489:Question
256:contribs
244:unsigned
115:View log
39:or in a
750:Updated
520:Mdann52
475:undated
162:WP refs
150:scholar
88:protect
83:history
54:Spartaz
923:Coffee
393:Delete
313:WP:BIO
134:Google
92:delete
50:delete
991:Bbb23
976:Ponyo
952:Wgolf
935:beans
695:19:37
689:19:26
683:19:22
677:19:16
663:False
444:Merge
177:JSTOR
138:books
122:Stats
109:views
101:watch
97:links
16:<
995:talk
956:talk
881:talk
852:talk
813:talk
779:this
777:and
775:this
763:talk
706:. -
641:here
628:talk
620:Keep
606:talk
589:Keep
572:talk
542:talk
524:talk
497:talk
469:talk
453:talk
432:talk
413:Keep
401:talk
381:talk
361:talk
341:talk
293:this
266:talk
252:talk
237:talk
209:. -
170:FENS
144:news
105:logs
79:talk
75:edit
938://
932://
926://
783:not
471:)
184:TWL
113:– (
997:)
958:)
920:—
887:)
883:•
854:)
819:)
815:•
765:)
630:)
612:)
608:•
578:)
574:•
544:)
526:)
499:)
455:)
434:)
403:)
383:)
375:.
363:)
355:.
343:)
335:.
307:,
303:,
299:,
268:)
254:•
164:)
107:|
103:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
81:|
77:|
993:(
954:(
879:(
850:(
811:(
761:(
626:(
604:(
570:(
540:(
522:(
516::
512:@
495:(
467:(
451:(
430:(
399:(
379:(
359:(
339:(
264:(
250:(
235:(
188:)
180:·
174:·
166:·
159:·
153:·
147:·
141:·
136:(
128:(
125:)
118:·
111:)
73:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.