Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 August 22

22 August 2010

Meadowoods – Userfied – Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Meadowoods (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Deleted with a single vote as "non-notable C film", however film appears on IMDB , has substantial media coverage , appears on Netflix, and has its own website Initial deletion should never have cariied through with only a single vote. -OberRanks (talk) 08:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC) OberRanks (talk) 08:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Two people opined in the deletion debate, the nominator and one other (which isn't a vote). As no one opined for keeping the outcome is not unreasonable (there is no quorum for such debates). DRV is about resolving problems with the deletion process, not a rerun of the AFD or just because of a disagreement with the result. However to address your points, IMDB catalogues pretty much everything, appearing there isn't indicative of notability and it is generally not considered a reliable source. One review doesn't make for substantial media coverage. Being available on netflix isn't an indication of notability, they'll stock any and every film. I have my own website, doesn't mean anything. WP:FILMNOT defines things like - "The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." or "The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following..." --82.7.40.7 (talk) 11:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Film has received more than a single review and is widely distributed . Some of the stars in the film are also notable and so, I believe is the director. All that aside, to close an AfD quickly with a single vote was not the proper thing to do. -OberRanks (talk) 11:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Again it's not a vote and there were two opinions not one. It wasn't closed quickly it ran the prescribed 7 days. Pointing me to a set of google results isn't that helpful, point out the two or more nationally known critics reviews would be more useful, but not that important. If the article can be rewritten to substantially address the issues of deletion (i.e. you can actually write an article which meets the criteria, not imagined criteria) then just do so (Ask for usification so you have a base to work from if you like). Notability isn't inherited, no midas about here touched things suddenly becoming notable and indeed none of the notability guides says anything about notable directors or actors. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 12:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC) No use debating in a vacuum, especially with a single purpose ip account. -OberRanks (talk) 15:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Single purpose? So rather than respond to the fact that it wasn't cut short, that there were 2 people opine rather than 1, produce the two reviews from nationally recognised reviewers etc. You'd rather try and attack me? Guess that shows just how misguided my policy based response is. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Wasn't really an attack. Just appeared that this ip address has mainly been used in deletion debates. Sorry if you got the wrong idea. -OberRanks (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Endorse close but relist. This was a proper exercise of admins discretion for what was apparently an "uncontested" deletion request. (however, personally I would have liked to see the "second" have been stronger then a "per nom", I would have relisted it if I saw it before Shimeru did) Question for OberRanks? Why didn't you !vote in the AFD? That would have bought a relist and perhaps a different outcome. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC) I just found out about this after watching the movie last night and coming to Wikipedia to read more about it. I was very surprised to find that there was no article. It was a disturbing film and the ending was well done. I also have no idea what the original article looked like, but I'm sure a proper article could be developed base don material about the film. -OberRanks (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Endorse deletion - More input would have been nice, but 2 calls for deletion is enough; there is no fault with the closing admin's action. I'd suggest requesting it to be userfied to User:OberRanks/Meadowoods where you can work on the reliable sourcing problems. IMDB and dvdtalk.com are user-submitted content sites, unable to be used to establish notability. Tarc (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Endorse with userification for RS improvement per Tarc. Jclemens (talk) 23:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Comment I userfied the article as suggested, and left a note for both the petitioner and the deleting admin. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Looks good to me. Thank you! -OberRanks (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Meadowoods – Userfied – Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Deleted with a single vote as "non-notable C film", however film appears on IMDB , has substantial media coverage , appears on Netflix, and has its own website Initial deletion should never have cariied through with only a single vote. -OberRanks (talk) 08:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC) OberRanks (talk) 08:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Two people opined in the deletion debate, the nominator and one other (which isn't a vote). As no one opined for keeping the outcome is not unreasonable (there is no quorum for such debates). DRV is about resolving problems with the deletion process, not a rerun of the AFD or just because of a disagreement with the result. However to address your points, IMDB catalogues pretty much everything, appearing there isn't indicative of notability and it is generally not considered a reliable source. One review doesn't make for substantial media coverage. Being available on netflix isn't an indication of notability, they'll stock any and every film. I have my own website, doesn't mean anything. WP:FILMNOT defines things like - "The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." or "The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following..." --82.7.40.7 (talk) 11:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Film has received more than a single review and is widely distributed . Some of the stars in the film are also notable and so, I believe is the director. All that aside, to close an AfD quickly with a single vote was not the proper thing to do. -OberRanks (talk) 11:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  - Again it's not a vote and there were two opinions not one. It wasn't closed quickly it ran the prescribed 7 days. Pointing me to a set of google results isn't that helpful, point out the two or more nationally known critics reviews would be more useful, but not that important. If the article can be rewritten to substantially address the issues of deletion (i.e. you can actually write an article which meets the criteria, not imagined criteria) then just do so (Ask for usification so you have a base to work from if you like). Notability isn't inherited, no midas about here touched things suddenly becoming notable and indeed none of the notability guides says anything about notable directors or actors. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 12:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
    - No use debating in a vacuum, especially with a single purpose ip account. -OberRanks (talk) 15:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
      - Single purpose? So rather than respond to the fact that it wasn't cut short, that there were 2 people opine rather than 1, produce the two reviews from nationally recognised reviewers etc. You'd rather try and attack me? Guess that shows just how misguided my policy based response is. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
    - Wasn't really an attack. Just appeared that this ip address has mainly been used in deletion debates. Sorry if you got the wrong idea. -OberRanks (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Endorse close but relist. This was a proper exercise of admins discretion for what was apparently an "uncontested" deletion request. (however, personally I would have liked to see the "second" have been stronger then a "per nom", I would have relisted it if I saw it before Shimeru did) Question for OberRanks? Why didn't you !vote in the AFD? That would have bought a relist and perhaps a different outcome. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- I just found out about this after watching the movie last night and coming to Wikipedia to read more about it. I was very surprised to find that there was no article. It was a disturbing film and the ending was well done. I also have no idea what the original article looked like, but I'm sure a proper article could be developed base don material about the film. -OberRanks (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Endorse deletion - More input would have been nice, but 2 calls for deletion is enough; there is no fault with the closing admin's action. I'd suggest requesting it to be userfied to User:OberRanks/Meadowoods where you can work on the reliable sourcing problems. IMDB and dvdtalk.com are user-submitted content sites, unable to be used to establish notability. Tarc (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Endorse with userification for RS improvement per Tarc. Jclemens (talk) 23:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Comment I userfied the article as suggested, and left a note for both the petitioner and the deleting admin. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thank you! -OberRanks (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.