Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood and Dirt: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 18:36, 12 March 2013

Blood and Dirt

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As yet unreferenced article on a documentary. I found nothing reliable on the internetz to prove this is notable--the best I could find was a fairly empty page on Rotten Tomatoes. Drmies (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect to the article on the band Vio-lence. In lacking notability for a separate article for this documentary, we can at least send readers to where they might otherwise learn about the band subject of the documentary. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I produced and Directed this DVD. It can be bought on Amazon and other online retailers. It is part of the Band, Vio-lence's discography. It has been verified by the Internet Movie Data Base. Such claims for deletion are baseless and the person making the claim is clearly ignorant and hasn't done his homework. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0831350/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1 ; http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0831350/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1 . Velociraptor666 (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Jerry Allen[reply]
- I'm not ignorant of Wikipedia's guidelines. Lots of non-notable things are for sale on Amazon. Drmies (talk) 16:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry? BlOOD AND DIRT has been verified by IMDB through their strict policy of validating real film releases. It came out in 2006. It is out of print at this time and currently only available on Amazon. When it was released, it was distributed to all areas of the globe and available on store shelves. Best Buy, Walmart, Rasputins and every online music retailer sold it. Just because it is now out of print does not diminish it from being an actual product that is extremely popular to it's target audience. Who are you to decide? Want me to provide reviews? This is ridiculous! Velociraptor666 (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I've provided links that show its listing on IMDB. Which you failed to mention. Any search for this DVD usually results in its IMDB listing. Drmies wrote "Lots of non-notable things are for sale on Amazon". If you did some research, you'd know that only NOTABLE titles are allowed on Internet Movie Data Base.

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/Vio-lence/Blood_and_Dirt/118603/

http://www.vio-lence.com/

https://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Vio-Lence_Blood_and_Dirt/70052622?locale=en-US

http://www.blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=52264

I can keep going. Obviously Drmies Google button is broken. Velociraptor666 (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even more evidence that Blood and Dirt is a "verifiable" and "NOTABLE" title that meets any reputable reference site's guidelines.
http://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?pid=7227743 CD UNIVERSE = Huge music website. Still selling Title as of today.

http://cdon.eu/music/vio-lence/blood_%26_dirt_%5Bimport%5D-16310829

http://www.utopia.com.au/products/Vio%252dLence-%252d-Blood-And-Dirt-%252d-DVD-%252d-Music.html

http://www.overdrive.ie/?p=518

http://www.spirit-of-metal.com/album-groupe-Vio*lence-nom_album-Blood_and_Dirt-l-en.html

http://www.metalkingdom.net/band/band_discography.php?idx=640

http://www.hbdirect.com/album/1611964-vio-lence-blood-and-dirt-.html

http://falloutzine.blogspot.com/2010/02/vio-lence-blood-dirt-dvd-2006.html

http://www.metalmusicarchives.com/vio-lence--blood-and-dirt%28movie%29.aspx
I can keep going. And did you see that it is available on Netfix as well? Yep, Netflix just throws up any non-verifiable titles. Education is key. Velociraptor666 (talk) 18:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Velociraptor666, the consensus at Wikipedia is that listings by retailers and an IMDB listing are not sufficient bases for an encyclopedia article. The only really relevant part of your comment is the question, "want me to provide reviews?" Yes, if you want this article kept then the best way to go about it would be to cite reviews in publications that meet the requirements outlined in our guidance on identifying reliable sources, rather than come out with all guns blazing. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will certainly defend my page and I have listed so many links that include reviews, it's really sad.

File:Vio-Lence dvd rock sound.jpg

review

File:Vio blood review1.jpg

review 1

File:Vio blood review2.jpg

review 2

There you go. More reviews. Seriously now. I have provided so much proof, it's insane. Velociraptor666 (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expect in this area, so won't comment on whether those reviews meet our requirements, but will point out that you would do better to simply provide such evidence without all of the bluster. I think that Drmies is much more knowledgeable than I about what sources are reliable for this sort of thing, but I wouldn't blame him for not coming back to this discussion after all of the insults that you've been throwing at him. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haha thanks Phil. Well, some of those reviews seem OK--they look to have been printed so that's a start. Essential bibliographical information is missing, though. But I'll do our metalhead a favor and ask Blackmetalbaz (if he's still around...) to have a look. Thank you much, Drmies (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I'm sorry. I didn't mean to "offend" anyone. I worked my butt off on this DVD and put three years of blood. sweat and tears into it so It's something I'm passionate about. Please excuse my enthusiasm in defense of its right to be recognized for posterity. Essential Bibliographical info missing? Specifically what do you mean? The DVD's release info or the publications that reviewed the DVD? Seriously? How many hoops do I have to jump through just to keep a simple page up? Velociraptor666 (talk) 21:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To User:Velociraptor666: Mere existance and being sold by venders is not the same as notability. Please read WP:NF to understand what is required to show notability for film projects here on Wikipedia. We understand that it is listed at IMDB and is for sale at various retailers. That does not mean it meets notability requirements. Also, in accepting that you are the Jerry M. Allen who produced and directed this DVD, I need to point you to Wikipedia's policy and concerns about conflict of interest when a contributor writes about topics with which they have a vested interest and Wikipeia's policy toward not letting itself be used as a means to promote products. See WP:ADVERT and WP:NOTPROMOTION. As for what links might show notability, please review WP:Identifying reliable sources and WP:Citing sources and WP:ELNO. I would also urge you to take a look at WP:PRIMER to gain an understanding of what is required to write an article here. If the DVd has received coverage and commentary and analysis in what Wikipedia determines as reliable sources, then a keep may well be a result. But links to listings or sales sites or sites showing viewer opinions do not do it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per OP. – Richard BB 22:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the criteria and Blood and Dirt not only meets, but exceeds the requirements as defined by the terms listed. You all keep adding new rules with every reply. The first statement by Drmies was that the only thing that could be found on Blood and Dirt was a blank Rotten Tomatoes page. I proved that to be false. You scoff at IMDB like it's some fan web site instead of a reference site for PREOFESSIONALS. The policy for inclusion on IMDB is a million times more complicated than this site and they require verification in advance. What this really comes down to is you people acting like your little Wiki Gods. Just because you are unfamiliar with the band and the DVD, you say it's not notable. Maybe in your worlds. To people into metal, it is very very notable. Netfix wouldn't have it in their playlist of titles if it weren't a valid title. As for me self promoting and this being a conflict of interest. More rubbish. I've made my case and I deserve to have a page. This is part of the band, Vio-lence's, discography. I wrote did the DVD to promote the band and made very little money from the DVD. I'm not making a dime from this page or benefiting from it other than providing information about the title for posterity. Isn't that what an encyclopedia does? Provide information? Does Wiki have a bias against metal music? This video has gotten rave reviews in print and web. Ugh, no not user reviews. JOURNALIST reviews. I've posted links. You chose to ignore them. Again, I've met every requirement for inclusion. Velociraptor666 (talk) 00:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the review in Blabbermouth.net may be suitable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blabbermouth is not usually considered a reliable source. I wish Baz would come by to shed light on it: few people here know metal like he does. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to delete it no matter what I say or provide proof of, at least merge the page with the Vio-lence page. Please. It's their official DVD and it's list boldly on their officiaVelociraptor666 (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not really around on WP at the minute but was asked for comment on this. There are a number of problems with the arguments being made for keeping the article, not least of all the fact that it seems to be almost entirely the page's creator arguing for its inclusion. An initial note on the "sources" provided; only one passes WP:RS (the Blabbermouth news report). No blogs or webzines, Netflix or IMDB can be used to establish notability, nor can the band's own website as it's obviously not third-party. I've not come across Megaforce Records before, and it's a bit unclear whether or not they're a notable label - if I get a minute, I'll try and look into it; if it is that would be some good evidence in favour of notability. However, remember that WP:MUSIC states that not every release from a notable band is necessarily notable; it needs to have its own separate notability because of WP:NOTINHERITED. What the author really could do with is some reviews in reliable, third-party, preferably print sources (or there are some reliable web sources, just not the ones cited here! Note: "reliable" refers to the policy, not what the author may believe to be "reliable"). Unless these are found, the page lacks notability on its own, and there is little to be merged. A redirect would be more appropriate. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect Blackmetalbaz, you've not heard of Megaforce records? And you're a metal head? It was only Metallica, Anthrax and million other metal legends label.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaforce_Records

Wow. Just wow. Nah. they are not a notable label. The only thing notable here is the lack of fairness. 50.136.237.90 (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in addition to Megaforce being a notable and legendary metal label...I mean it doesn't get much bigger than METALLICA, I myself, as a documentary music director, am notable. But no matter what I say or provide as far as evidence, you guys will somehow scoff at it because YOU PERSONALLY have never heard of it. What sort of encyclopedia criteria is that? Be real. Pretty soon the criteria will be "if my mom hasn't heard of it, it's not notable and doesn't exist". lol! I can provide all kinds of international print and web reviews for other works that I've produced and directed... hence forth proving "my" notability. I almost get the impression you all are just trying to break my balls here. I've provided many many links that I guarantee, you haven't looked at. Here's a few of my youtube clips. Check them out. I already know the response. "Youtube proof is not sufficient and neither are the actual print reviews you posted even though we asked for them. Face it Mr. Allen, nothing you post will satisfy us." It's getting comical now. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZZ4_pq-AFk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sDJtXy3lm8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB6VO-w9LGM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Velociraptor666 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Allen, I'm beginning to think of you less as a film director and more as a professional and bad-mannered lout. We have criteria, yes: stuff has to be written about in reliable sources. Simple as that. Sorry if that's too much to ask, while you're promoting your own business here. No one here is trying to break your balls, evidence of which is also lacking: a bit of shouting on a website does not give a person balls. Your scanned articles were probably removed as copyright violations (surely you've heard of the concept) and the "bibliographic information" that I mentioned above as missing was simple stuff, like, you know, what magazine, what date, what pages--stuff that my freshman composition students would know, and the kind of stuff that an encyclopedia runs on. And now I'm done with you. If you were any smarter, you'd try to make build bridges and seek understanding and compromise, rather than piss off the very people who are most likely to help you, like Blackmetalbaz. Drmies (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment Ah, yes, that Megaforce. I was confused by the redlink on the Vio-lence page which led me to believe that it was something separate. That is a strong bit of evidence to promote your cause, and would suggest that there would be large numbers of reviews in professional print media to establish notability. I haven't actually seen you point towards any however. No-one's trying to "break your balls" here, but your internet posturing is getting a bit silly. You may or may not be a "notable" human being, but that is not what is at question here. My simple suggestion to you: provide below three in-depth (and all I mean by that is a paragraph rather than a couple of sentences) reviews of your documentary in professional print magazines and you have established notability (issue number, date and page please). And don't whinge that thrash is underground and doesn't get coverage because we all know that's not true. I'd start by looking in the likes of Metal Hammer, Kerrang, Decibel, Terrorizer or Zero Tolerance. If you can't find those reviews, your documentary is not independently notable of the band article and should be deleted. Simple really. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Baz, there were images posted of printed reviews--but without any bibliographic information it was impossible to figure out what they were worth, where they were published. Three such reviews would go a long way, of course: pity that the relevant information wasn't provided, and it never showed up in the Google News or Book searches I did. If Mr. Allen would provide that information we could make hay here. Drmies (talk) 16:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 10:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vio-lence - Notability is not inherited, I'm not seeing any cast-iron WP:RS anywhere, let alone anything in-depth in a WP:RS. The one keep voter has a clear conflict of interest as well. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vio-lence seems to be the most appropriate action here. Notability has not been established, nor has there been any meaningful covereage in reliable sources. --Cyrus Andiron 18:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 69: / Line 69: @@
 <hr style="width:55%;" />
 *'''Redirect to [[Vio-lence]]''' - Notability is [[WP:NOTINHERIT|not inherited]], I'm not seeing any cast-iron [[WP:RS]] anywhere, let alone anything in-depth in a [[WP:RS]]. The one keep voter has a clear conflict of interest as well. [[User:Lukeno94|<font color="Navy">Luke</font><font color="FireBrick">no</font><font color="Green">94</font>]] [[User talk:Lukeno94#top|<i>(talk)</i>]] 17:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
+*'''Redirect''' to [[Vio-lence]] seems to be the most appropriate action here. [[WP:N|Notability]] has not been established, nor has there been any meaningful covereage in [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. --[[User:Cyrus Andiron|<font face="Georgia"><font color="#C0C0C0">Cyrus</font></font>]]  [[User Talk:Cyrus Andiron|<font face="Bookman Old Style"><font color="#708090 ">Andiron</font></font>]] 18:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)