Jump to content

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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Salander44 (talk | contribs) at 02:27, 17 July 2017 (→‎Gimme Head: the Tale of the Cuyahoga Valley Bigfoot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Gimme Head: the Tale of the Cuyahoga Valley Bigfoot

Gimme Head: the Tale of the Cuyahoga Valley Bigfoot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(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]
  • 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]