Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gimme Head: the Tale of the Cuyahoga Valley Bigfoot: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:43, 17 July 2017

Gimme Head: the Tale of the Cuyahoga Valley Bigfoot

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

A C movie with references that are nearly as bad as the film purportedly is. Nothing of any substance - all very local or very, very niche or blogs. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NMOVIE. Cabayi (talk) 10:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG and WP:NMOVIE. First, to avoid any possible confusion, let me state unequivocally that I am the author of article subject to deletion and that I am also the writer, producer and director of the film. This should be apparent in the comments that follow, but if not, it should be clear now. If anyone wants to object for that reason, I will make appropriate revisions to this comment. Now, since an issue of notability has been raised, I added a feature article from The Akron Beacon Journal, which is Akron, Ohio's major newspaper. Akron, Ohio, is a major city and cultural center in the United States, and has given the world may great actors, film directors and musicians. See wikipedia entry: List of people from Akron, Ohio. Moreover, it screened at Nightlight Cinema, Akron’s premiere art cinema house, and is scheduled to screen at Cleveland Comic Con, Cleveland, Ohio in October. Beyond that, however, the film is represented on both IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes, and appropriate links were given to each. Both are encyclopedic sources for information on films created worldwide. Six other links (not including The Beacon Journal, above) were posted in the original article, all from non-related film critics from the United States and Canada over whom I have no authority or control. Following the link to each of those sources will show sustained and ongoing engagement in the business of film reviewing, and not a one-off review for this particular film. Blogs and websites, particularly in the area of pop culture and film, are now part of the media culture we live in, and shouldn’t be dismissed as niche when they show an serious and continuous pursuit of the topic to which they are devoted. The suggestion has been made, however, that the film could be moved to Help:Userspace draft or retrieved under Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Both actions create their own issues and a better course of action may be possible, as in the following example. Made in Cleveland is another movie made in Cleveland that seems to have similar issues related to references and notability. Looking at the references to the film, there are two solid newspaper references, at least two dead links, two links that lead tho the Wayback Machine (webarchive) with less than perfect results, and nothing more current than 2012-2013. This isn't to criticize Made in Cleveland, a fine and notable film, but to suggest that that film has been given the opportunity to replace and supplement its references and make a stronger wikipedia entry, including the later addition of links from other wikipedia pages. Gimme Head: the Tale of the Cuyahoga Valley Bigfoot is less than one-year old and has already received notice from the United States, Canada, and even the UK (review in "Slaughtered Bird"). More reviews and screenings are currently in process. So rather than taking the rash action of deletion, would it not be better to keep the same type of "Multiple Issues" flag as appears on Made in Cleveland, and periodically review for additions that make a better wikipedia entry for the film. Salander44 (talk) 15:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 10:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 10:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - With the exception of the Beacon Journal, all of the reviewers appear to be blogs and blogs are implicitly non-reliable IMDb has been rejected as a reliable source because it's user maintained and virtually unedited. Rotten Tomatoes does have a listing, but the "tomatometer" is unavailable (although it's available for other works); I think this means that no reviewer recognized by the site has reviewed the film; there are also no viewer comments. The movie is shorter than the average TV episode.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 16:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Made in Cleveland is another movie made in Cleveland that seems to have similar issues related to references and notability. Looking at the references to the film, there are two solid newspaper references, at least two dead links, and nothing more current than 2012-2013. This isn't to criticize Made in Cleveland, but to suggest that it has been given the opportunity to replace and supplement its references and make a stronger wikipedia entry, including the addition of links from other wikipedia pages. Gimme Head: the Tale of the Cuyahoga Valley Bigfoot is less than one-year old and has already received notice from the United States, Canada, and even the UK (review in "Slaughtered Bird"). More reviews and screenings are currently in process. So rather than taking the rash action of deletion, would it not be better to keep the same type of "Multiple Issues" flag as appears on Made in Cleveland, and periodically review for additions that make a better wikipedia entry for the film. Keep and improve. Very, very sorry. I forgot to sign this comment. I've added my signature now. Made in Cleveland is another movie made in Cleveland that seems to have similar issues related to references and notability. Looking at the references to the film, there are two solid newspaper references, at least two dead links, and nothing more current than 2012-2013. This isn't to criticize Made in Cleveland, but to suggest that it has been given the opportunity to replace and supplement its references and make a stronger wikipedia entry, including the addition of links from other wikipedia pages. Gimme Head: the Tale of the Cuyahoga Valley Bigfoot is less than one-year old and has already received notice from the United States, Canada, and even the UK (review in "Slaughtered Bird"). More reviews and screenings are currently in process. So rather than taking the rash action of deletion, would it not be better to keep the same type of "Multiple Issues" flag as appears on Made in Cleveland, and periodically review for additions that make a better wikipedia entry for the film. Salander44 (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry User:Salander44... while you may certainly make what arguments you wish, only one "keep" per editor. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now Userfy. As it is beginning to get some coverage and review outside of blogs, but not enough yet in WP:RS to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. I gave the thing some tweaks for style and tone, and nice as the in-depth article in Akron Beacon Journal is, WP:NF needs more. I suggest it be userfied for now back to brand new and inexperienced contributor User:Salander44, and allowed to return once it gets more non-blog coverage. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: " Delete for now Userfy". Thank you User:MichaelQSchmidt. I want to follow this discussion for further thoughts, but I also want to know the best way to proceed if the page is deleted. Is the best process to create a Help:Userspace draft or use the Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Is one option better than another? Or should both be used? Salander44 (talk) 20:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this were to be deleted without a "userfy" or "draftify" suggestion, you could create a new draft using the article wizard, or you could ask at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for it to be restored and moved to user or draft space. Restore and move preserves the text and history. In either case it would be well, after having found enough additional sources to clearly establish notability, to ask at Deletion Review for authorization to move back to mainspace. Or an AFC reviewer could authorize that, if clearly informed of this discussion. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remove superfluous comments. Thank you for your advice and help, User:MichaelQSchmidt. Would it be possible to remove the paragraphs which have the "strikethrough"? I was not aware of the single "Keep" post policy, and moved the content to my main comment. The strikethrough comments are now superfluous. I would remove them myself, but want to avoid compounding my errors. If you or another user would not be comfortable making that deletion (of the "strikethrough" comments), could you authorize me to do so? This comment could be removed in the process, since it too, would be superfluous. Removing the comments would result in a much cleaner Deletion page. Salander44 (talk) 23:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, Salander44 Comments once made should not be removed, and once replied to or a later comment has been made should not be edited except to corect typos and invalid markup and the like, or to strike through content. The original strike through could have been done on just the 'keep" not the rest, but it has been done now and further editing would not be helpful. There is no need for "a clean page" as long as people's commetns are clear. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment if the decision here is to userfy then the closer could and should simply move the article to user space, and place {{userspace draft}} on it to mark it as a draft. Another option is to "draftify", that is move it to draftspace instead. In that case {{subst:AFC draft| <username>}} should be used. I'll want to check the sources myself before giving my own view. Note that more sources, if available, can be added while this discussion is in progress. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, and if deleted, I can move the content to a work-space for you at User:Salander44/Gimme Head: the Tale of the Cuyahoga Valley Bigfoot so you can continue work and seek input before seeking its return. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and userfy. Blogs are not reliable sources and do not establish notability. The daily newspaper story is not a professional review of the film itself but is a local event announcement for a New Year's Eve showing of the film. Comparing this article to other poor quality film articles is not a persuasive argument for keeping the article. We want high quality articles about films widely reviewed in reliable sources instead. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. From what I can determine thus far, the standards in use by wikipedia made a lot of sense in 1967 — 50 years ago — when I was a college senior. We had a library with adequate resources, and the printed book and journal were the measures of “notability” on any subject from chemistry (my first major) to economics (I changed course) to political science (my final major, which led me to Law School and a J.D. in 1970). But this is 2017, not 1967. Can notability be measured solely by inclusion in printed journals, or newspapers which struggle to survive? Can’t it also be found in the blogs and websites of people who dedicate themselves to the task of critical comment on every variety of issue? Whether or not my article is deleted, what I find interesting is a demeaning of the people who take time to write and comment in blogs and websites, the 21st century equivalent of the printing press, but are met with derisive remarks like: “…references that are nearly as bad as the film purportedly is. Nothing of any substance - all very local or very, very niche or blogs.” The reviews were not local, save one. Nor is horror niche, even if it includes blood, boobs and beast. And blogs, as blogs, should not be cavalierly dismissed. It may still be a sore point for some, but the colonies are now a free country because of “ignorant” pamphleteers, the 1776 equivalent to today’s bloggers. See, for example: “American Revolution’s Pamphleteers, Today’s Bloggers and Twitterers for Change.” ^[1], written in the context of the resistance movement in Iran. You didn’t see those 1776-era pamphleteers writing articles in the Encyclopedia Britannica, first published between 1768 and 1771 in the Scottish capital of Edinburgh, but their influence and “notability” could not have been be denied, even in 1776. Peer reviewed articles with copious references may be appropriate for scholarly journals like Cell ^[2] and Nature ^[3], and yes, even Encyclopedia Britannica, but are they the ONLY appropriate measure on wikipedia? Shouldn’t the fact of notability determine? Salander44 (talk) 08:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://www.fastcompany.com/1306652/american-revolutions-pamphleteers-todays-bloggers-and-twitterers-change

[2] ttp://www.cell.com

[3] ttp://www.nature.com

[1]

[2]

[3]

@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
 ::* Yup, and if deleted, I can move the content to a work-space for you at [[User:Salander44/Gimme Head: the Tale of the Cuyahoga Valley Bigfoot]] so you can continue work and seek input before seeking [[WP:REFUND|its return]].  '''[[User:MichaelQSchmidt|<font color="blue">Schmidt, </font>]]''' ''[[User talk:MichaelQSchmidt|<sup><small>Michael Q.</small></sup>]]'' 01:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' and userfy. Blogs are not reliable sources and do not establish notability. The daily newspaper story is not a professional review of the film itself but is a local event announcement for a New Year's Eve showing of the film. Comparing this article to other poor quality film articles is not a persuasive argument for keeping the article. We want high quality articles about films widely reviewed in reliable sources instead. [[User:Cullen328|<b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328</sup>]] [[User talk:Cullen328|<span style="color:#00F">''Let's discuss it''</span>]] 03:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
+*'''Comment'''.  From what I can determine thus far, the standards in use by wikipedia made a lot of sense in 1967 — 50 years ago — when I was a college senior.  We had a library with adequate resources, and the printed book and journal were the measures of “notability” on any subject from chemistry (my first major) to economics (I changed course) to political science (my final major, which led me to Law School and a J.D. in 1970).  But this is 2017, not 1967.  Can notability be measured solely by inclusion in printed journals, or newspapers which struggle to survive?  Can’t it also be found in the blogs and websites of people who dedicate themselves to the task of critical comment on every variety of issue?  Whether or not my article is deleted, what I find interesting is a demeaning of the people who take time to write and comment in blogs and websites, the 21st century equivalent of the printing press, but are met with derisive remarks like: “…references that are nearly as bad as the film purportedly is. Nothing of any substance - all very local or very, very niche or blogs.” The reviews were not local, save one. Nor is horror niche, even if it includes blood, boobs and beast. And blogs, as blogs, should not be cavalierly dismissed.  It may still be a sore point for some, but the colonies are now a free country because of “ignorant” pamphleteers, the 1776 equivalent to today’s bloggers. See, for example: “American Revolution’s Pamphleteers, Today’s Bloggers and Twitterers for Change.” <ref>https://www.fastcompany.com/1306652/american-revolutions-pamphleteers-todays-bloggers-and-twitterers-change</ref>, written in the context of the resistance movement in Iran. You didn’t see those 1776-era pamphleteers writing articles in the [[Encyclopedia Britannica]], first published between 1768 and 1771 in the Scottish capital of Edinburgh, but their influence and “notability” could not have been be denied, even in 1776. Peer reviewed articles with copious references may be appropriate for scholarly journals like Cell <ref> http://www.cell.com </ref> and Nature <ref> http://www.nature.com </ref>, and yes, even [[Encyclopedia Britannica]], but are they the ONLY appropriate measure on wikipedia? Shouldn’t the fact of notability determine? [[User:Salander44|Salander44]] ([[User talk:Salander44|talk]]) 08:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)