Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/It Must be Nice

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is clear for delete; no need for a redirect can be established. Drmies (talk) 04:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It Must be Nice

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's

list of content for rescue consideration. Catpowerzzz (talk) 00:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Tired of arguing about this one. I've trimmed the links to blogs and unreliable sources, (and the creator keeps reverting) but in the end, this is exactly what wp:crystalball is meant for. No reliable sources are talking about this, and I have no idea if they will for this short. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This was a frivolous and vexatious nomination for deletion as you can tell by the submitter's comment "tired of arguing". "Tired of arguing" is not a reason for deletion of material, but shows vexation as a chief motivator for his submission. The user
WP:SPEEDYKEEP. I suggest that the user withdraw this article from consideration. See the comment below, "Dennis Brown was wrong to remove those new references for the given reason, so I have reinstated them. He is absolutely wrong to claim that an article must be "frozen" at the state it started AfD. by Boing! said Zebedee which confirms that Dennis Brown tried to claim the article was "frozen" and that no changes could be made, including adding the sources that he was requesting. He had deleted all sources and content from the article prior to submission in a vexatious way to make the article "stub-like" and appear to be without sources. He then misinformed this user that I couldn't change the article or put back the references that he had deleted. That seems to be malicious and not in good faith. - Catpowerzzz (talk) 23:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

I had misunderstood Dennis Brown's edit summary - he had not intended to suggest an article should be frozen for AfD -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Can always be reposted if and when reliable sources cover it. 99.136.255.180 (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful Delete. I can only see primary sources used here. The others that have been removed appeared to be largely irrelevant, about the people rather than the film itself, or blogs etc. I've done a bit of searching and I can't find any reliable third party coverage of the film itself. Once released, if it gets suitable coverage, it would be eligible for its own article. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to
talk) 14:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply
]

Delete.
WP:FUTURE: "until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable". -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 14:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. This request for deletion is in violation of
WP:HOUND states that it is unacceptable for an editor to disrupt another user's enjoyment of editing for "no overriding reason," as there is clearly not grounds for this aggressive nomination for deletion. The above suggestion by Sailing to Byzantium that it be merged into Chris Innis is also not acceptable, as merging would create too large of an article there. This article is notable enough to warrant a stand alone page and if the editors who ganged up to delete it would stop deleting content about the "cinematography" and other pertinent content, the article would be more fleshed out (and would not appear stub-like just so that they could nominate it for deletion by making it appear that it has no substance). Oh and by the way, none of the above users has been a part of the discussion of the film nor contributed to the article aside from the one who has nominated it for deletion. He claims he is "tired" about discussing it but nobody made him do that -- he took it upon himself to agressively delete this material. Again, you have to question the motivation. Thanks for your consideration. - Catpowerzzz (talk) 17:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. Nobody is ganging up on the article. This is how AfD works and just because people are not agreeing with your opinion does not automatically mean that we're acting in bad faith or that we have an agenda against this movie. People look at the article and then try to find enough reliable sources to show that the film meets
talk) 06:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply
]

Comment (Response). Dennis Brown has deleted all of the sources that you are requesting. When I told him to put back the sources that he deleted, he refused stating that, "that's the way it was when it was submitted" for consideration for deletion. No, that's the way it was when HE decided to submit it. If you want to see the independent sources that were cited, which were not just the official web site, please revert back the article to my last edit or the one before that. If I do it, he or Ckatz are just going to revert it. I told Dennis Brown on the talk page that it would be obfuscating if he were to continue to strip the article of its sources and/or external links during an Afd deliberation in order for him to create the misconception that there were no independent sources. He (and Ckatz's) apparent goal was to game the system by presenting a stub-like article with no sources to you guys for consideration. That's what I mean by not using good faith and being dangerously close to
WP:GAME if not a text book example of it. Look, the bottom line is that even aside from the independent sources we have (2 media interviews and one print article in a magazine) and then the official web site, we have met notability because the filmmaker is a recent Oscar winner. If the bar for notability is going to be set so high as to exclude Oscar winners, then I think Wikipedia needs some new "rules." But of course, it has become the "Lord of the Flies" Wikipedia and is no longer the Wikipedia of the people. - Catpowerzzz (talk) 21:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Response. Dennis Brown was wrong to remove those new references for the given reason, so I have reinstated them. He is absolutely wrong to claim that an article must be "frozen" at the state it started AfD. In fact, editors are encouraged to improve an article during an AfD discussion, and any new sources added should be reviewed before the AfD is closed. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've had a look at the new references...
"Official web site - It Must be Nice short film" - not independent.

"Mingle Media archived Interview" - interview with the director is a primary source, does not establish notability

"Nyne Magazine, UK, Interview with John LaZar" - interview with a star is a primary source, does not establish notability

"Amanda Fuller Talks..." - interview with a star is a primary source, does not establish notability

So, sorry, but I really don't think any of those helps to establish notability. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't interviews establish notability? They're not primary sources if the interview is conducted by a third party. If someone posted an "interview" on their own website or Facebook or some such, I could understand, but an interview by a newspaper or magazine, surely, should count as independent third party coverage. Right? Before a movie is released or made available for critical reviews, the only way to get information about it would be to contact those involved with the project. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The mentions look awfully thin: one link is to a video from a blog site. In the Nyne Mag interview the subject mentions the movie briefly, likewise in the video interview at Mingle Media; the mentions are promotional, and don't constitute coverage by objective sources. In sum it's an attempt to piece together notability from scraps, since there's not a single expansive piece of coverage from a reliable source. 99.136.255.180 (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply For instance, the Mingle interview doesn't establish notability because the interview wasn't about the short, it barely mentioned it at all. It wasn't really an interview anyway, it was a reporter with a mic from yet another website that basically caught Chris walking by, asked her the basic canned questions for 53 seconds. Fails
reliable source that was about the short movie, it would be a completely different story, and would be perfectly fine to establish notability. To put it in perspective, the "interviewing" company didn't even bother putting it on their own website, and searching for the director "Chris Innis" returns zero hits on their website. Yet the "reference" was added again after being deleted several times. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Okay, that's fine, and good explanations from both of you. I was just concerned at the seeming suggestion that interviews per se could not establish notability. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted back. Those had been deleted by myself and an admin a few times (the history shows this). The original rational is valid, that they are not reliable sources. I did not say you can't add sources to an article in AFD, which would be absurd, since I do it all the time. In fact, I wasn't treating it any differently than any other article, regardless of AFD status. Why I am being accused of this, I have no idea, but again, the histories clearly show otherwise. I did comment on his rationale, but it didn't overcome the previous rationale, that they fail RS. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response (to Response) Thanks for looking at that and for noting that Dennis Brown was wrong to suggest that the article is frozen at the place he last reverted it. Notability is established also by the Wikipedia internal links. The main filmmaker has recently won an
Grammy award nominated actress. Triple threat. Director of Photography was DP on numerous recent high profile films as well as having been a camera operator with David Lynch, Tim Burton, and others. Four. Star actress, Amanda Fuller, is recurring player on this season's hit t.v. series Grey's Anatomy. Five. Six, Clu Gulager is an actor who has starred in just about every tv show EVER. He was featured in The Last Picture Show which is also a cult film. Seriously, how many levels of "notability" does a film have to hit to be considered worthy of inclusion? This is not just some Youtube video off the street. - Catpowerzzz (talk) 22:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

OK, sorry if I misunderstood Dennis Brown's edit summary. But I really do think it is better not to remove sources added during this AfD discussion, and instead let people actually review them. It will do no harm at all to have a few non-RS sources for the duration of the discussion, and at least it should counter the "They're censoring me to make sure it gets deleted" argument -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Catpowerzzz, you have put quite a bit of work into writing that message. Unfortunately, however, much of what you write either misses the point of Wikipedia's notability criteria, or falls down in other ways. For a couple of reasons I don't intend to make detailed answers to all of your points, but to illustrate here are a few points. You say "Good faith has not been assumed by the other editors", but I don't see where or how. Everything that I have seen about this (both on this page and elsewhere) is consistent with the view that everyone thinks you are acting in perfectly good faith, but have sincerely misunderstood how Wikipedia works. You say that "The film features significant involvement by a notable person", and suggest that this means it is notable per
talk) 10:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment (Response): The film meets notability requirements on more than one level. Not just by the sources, which as you see in my (above) response to Tokyogirl's comment. As I mentioned to Tokyogirl, Dennis Brown and Ckatz did not present the article for deletion until after they had stripped the article down to a stub and removed all of the outside independent sources both from the references column and from external links. That means that they know the article is worthy of keeping, they just needed to present it as if it wasn't. The film meets the notability requirements on multiple levels, not just with Academy Award nominee Karen Black's involvement. The filmmaker is a recent Oscar winner. That is the main person making the film. That is notabilty number one. The actors are all known actors, not just Karen Black.
WP:ENT notability. To say that something needs to be "a major" part of someone's career is a subjective judgement. How do you know if it is a major part of someone's career? To them it might be. The reality is that the requirements for Film Notability for upcoming films does not set the bar at a film having to be a "major" part of someone's career because there is no way to forecast that. Yet "upcoming films" is an important part of Wikipedia and the sources/articles that come out when a film is in production are going to be fewer and less detailed than those that come out after a film comes out. That's why the Wikipedia film guidelines for notability states that the film must have two sources and be past "principal photography". Dennis Brown can strip all of the sources out of the article to try to sneak this into a notability/deletion, but it doesn't get around the fact that it meets notability requirements even without those sources and because it is an 'upcoming' film the bar is not set the same for inclusion as Wikipedia's other film articles. Wikipedia's guidelines state that content is not to be deleted just because it isn't sourced anyway (and again, this WAS sourced and sourced by a requisite three independent sources which were deleted by the person who submitted this). The article does not meet the criteria for deletion anyway. It is not "nonsense", it is not "a hoax". If something is of value, then it is a "keep." - Catpowerzzz (talk) 21:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Unfortunately you have missed the point of much of what I tried to say. I will once again not spend the inordinate amount of time it would take to explain in detail what all your errors and misunderstandings are, but I will just mention one thing. You refer repeatedly to what you call "upcoming" films, and the essential point of what you say about them seems to be that you think these "upcoming" films have a lower standard of notability required than other subjects. (For example, you say "the bar is not set the same for inclusion as Wikipedia's other film articles".) However, this is simply not so. The only place that I know of where there is any mention of notability specifically for films that have not yet been released (which is what I assume you mean by "upcoming") is the section of
talk) 09:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom, and per convention for this sort of work at this stage of its life. There is no indication that the film itself is particularly notable, or that it will become so. If it does in the future, we can certainly reconsider, but as of now that is uncertain. From viewing the clip with the producer, she appears uncertain as to where or when the film will appear. Catpowerzzz needs to understand that deletion of the article is not a comment on the quality of the film, but merely recognition that it is not suited for a Wikipedia article. He/she also needs to understand that the other editors involved have been acting in good faith, and that they have been reviewing the material presented in a fair and transparent manner. --Ckatz^chatspy 20:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment. This article does meet the conventions for an "upcoming" film. Ckatz commented that he doesn't know if the "film itself" will be notable. One can't know if ANY "upcoming" film itself will be notable. A notable filmmaker and/or cast member making or starring in a film is enough to qualify for inclusion and to presume the film too will be notable in and of itself. The bar is also set at a different level for sources of information on "upcoming films" because there may be less primary sourced news (i.e. finished film reviews) available, which is to say that upcoming films only need two independent sources confirming that they are in production or post-production, and evidence that the film is past the stage of "principal photography" to be included. Wikipedia guidelines also state that content shouldn't automatically be dismissed or deleted unless there is a reasonable expectation to suspect that the information given by those sources is UNTRUE; You must presume it is true. The general guideline is to presume good faith and be inclusive and not to delete good content. - Catpowerzzz (talk) 22:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom, no RS references, no indications of notability. propose
WP:SNOW. Gaijin42 14:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

comment: - is the above another comment from Ckatz or an unsigned request? Just saying... - Catpowerzzz (talk)

It is clearly an unsigned post, as even the most basic scan of the article history will confirm. You would be better off trying to address the valid concerns listed above, rather than muckraking. Your claim that editors were "gaming the system" is equally ludicrous. Please avoid spurious claims that serve only to demonstrate a lack of respect for the collaborative process. --Ckatz^chat _spy 00:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the "spurious" claim fits, then wear it. Or not. Forgive me if I thought it was you or somebody you know, because there is a remote possibility it wasn't somebody you know. In any event, this whole discussion is a ruse. Submitting articles for deletion to harass or vex because a user is "tired" of discussing it (or any other personal reason) is wrong and qualifies that user to be blocked. Academy Award-winning is notable by film notability guidelines. There is no higher level of excellence in the film world. End of story. It may make you mad. I can understand that. If all I got was barnstars, I would be mad about real world awards too. But barnstars are invisible, Academy Awards are not. They are real. They are given only to the top filmmakers. As for the extreme scrutiny the sources have been given, even content that is not sourced or poorly sourced can be (and is) a part of Wikipedia and should only be deleted according to Wikipedia's guidelines if it is untrue, gibberish or a hoax. That is not the case here. The content has been repeatedly deleted as well as the sources, even when the sources were put in the "external links" portion of the article. This user has tried to revise the article and lose words such as "successful" which you might have objected to as "advertising" and no amount of editing was enough to satisfy you or Dennis Brown. That's because you had another goal in mind. Cutting the article down to a stub and then deletion. However the user Dennis Brown might be tripped up by his words on the talk page prior to deletion where he states that his goal was to keep the article and to encourage others to contribute to it. Dennis Brown states, "As for the tags, it was tagged to encourage others to find more references, not to get it deleted. If I wanted to send it to AFD I would have. Once the movie comes out, there is a chance that better references will come along, and the tag is there to tell people they need to be added.". That tells me that he knows the article is worthy of keeping and that he only submitted it later because he didn't want to be reasonable and find a consensus between his side and mine. It seems that the intent of his later request for deletion was merely out of revenge or to end an argument that the user was getting "tired" of. That is not a good reason to submit something for deletion. I think we should take Dennis Brown at what he first stated that he didn't want to "get it deleted" but wanted "to encourage others" to contribute to it. An article has to exist, however, for others to be able to contribute to it at a later date. This just does not meet the level of scrutiny you or your friend Dennis Brown are giving it. - Catpowerzzz (talk) 01:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, just one last attempt to clarify things for you. I hope this will be more successful than previous attempts. (1) I see no evidence anywhere that the nomination was made in order "to harass or vex". Dennis Brown did not say that he was nominating simply because he was tired. He said that "this is exactly what wp:crystalball is meant for", and that "No reliable sources are talking about this". He also made a remark about being tired of arguing about it, but no reasonable person reading the nomination could think he was saying that the nomination was made purely for that reason. (Incidentally, I reckon that the closing admin for this AfD, by the time he/she gets this far, will have a pretty good idea why Dennis was tired of arguing about it.) (2) The fact that Dennis posted comments before this AfD indicating that he was trying "to encourage others to find more references, not to get it deleted" does not in any way detract from the validity of the AfD nomination. He thought there might be valid sources, and invited others to find some. However, they didn't, and eventually he decided that there probably aren't any, so he went ahead with an AfD after all. That is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, and in fact much better than taking it to AfD right away, without giving a chance for notability to be demonstrated. It does not mean that "he knows the article is worthy of keeping and that he only submitted it later because he didn't want to be reasonable". Saying that an article may be "worthy of keeping", and giving others the opportunity to show that it is, is not at all the same thing as saying that it is "worthy of keeping". Finally, I suggest you look carefully at everything everyone else has said about this, both here, on the article's talk page, on user talk pages, on the discussion at
talk) 09:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Move and redirect to Chris Innis. There's just not enough coverage of this film right now to warrant having its own article, once its released and there is independent reviews it can be undeleted for you.Theworm777 (talk) 02:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Catpowerzzz has now increased the number of "references" in the article from three to 12. However, three are still the same non-indepenendent sources at http://chrisinnis.com as mentioned above, and the other nine are pages that don't even mention "It Must be Nice ".
talk) 09:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Persistent questioning of nominator's motives here is immaterial, and is an attempt to personalize this discussion and alter its focus. That there may be COI concerns in the article's creation and continued linking to non-independent sources appears more relevant. The article's issues are evident to multiple passers-by. 99.136.255.180 (talk) 13:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (response) The nominator is the one who started the Afd by saying that he was "tired" of discussing the issue. So he is stating his motives himself, it's not me questioning the motives. They are clear. And under the guidelines for
WP:SPEEDYKEEP a nominator cannot submit an article if his motivation is to end an edit war. It's clear that was his motivation. Again, if you look at the talk page of the article he says just a few days before nominating the article that it wasn't his intent. The amount of sources did not change in that time, just his lack of patience. I think there have been some good and some iffy reasoning going on here. What I think would be a good solution is that since the article is relatively new and it is not the type of article that would qualify for speedy deletion, that instead we give the article time to breathe and time for more sources to be added at a later date. There is no rush to get rid of this article, as clearly there is a backlog of other articles with no references at all that have more serious notability or sourcing issues. In fact if you look at the Wikipedia notability project, the backlog goes back as far as 2007. That's a lot of articles. I think the problem here is that these tags are being thrown on every article willy nilly without giving the articles and the editors time to build them. If a tag sits on an article for 4 years, then clearly if someone hasn't proven notability by that point, I would understand an Afd. But to throw an article out when it has been recently created without allowing time for it to build, seems rash. As for the sources, there are several sources for the article which are not primary (the official web page) but which are secondary sources, i.e. media outlets not associated with the production. There are not any articles which the primary "focus" is the film, and that doesn't seem to be the criteria for notablity. I'm sure with a lot of cult films and films that are "upcoming" there might not be enough information for a full article, but an article might make mention of a film. Seems that would be valid. Again, I think the right response would be to keep the article and keep the tag for more sources to be added. - Catpowerzzz (talk) 04:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Reply Let me clarify the statement in my nomination. When I said "Tired of arguing about this one.", what I meant was "I'm tired of arguing about this one.". You constantly question people's faith, make negative comments about the other projects they work on, and in general, trying to discuss anything with you is a chore. You have spoken about this article at rescue, on the talk page of the article and here at AFD. Can you find one person who think you are correct in your assessment, and who isn't tired of your rants regarding the article and other people's good faith? Just ONE person? I didn't think so, yet you continue to rant about how everyone else is wrong except you, how everyone is out to get you. Accusing an admin of posting unsigned on this very page, to pad the !vote (when a look at the history would have shown otherwise). This is exactly the kind of constant disruption that Wikipedia does not need. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please, you need to understand that the editors involved in this are acting in good faith and per Wikipedia's guidelines. This is not even a "speedy" deletion, as you've described it above; those are not discussed, but simply deleted (if an article fits the requirements). This is a full-on deletion discussion, and the trend is clear based on the comments so far. You're hoping to establish notability, but your efforts to date are in fact supporting the opinion that the film does not have the notability for a stand-alone article. Who knows, perhaps after its release it will go on to receive critical acclaim (or notoriety) from high-level critics, and (perhaps) then begin to warrant an article. At present, however, your sources simply support that it exists which is not sufficient. --Ckatz^chat _spy 05:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Dennis Brown is trying to suggest that this is a simple vote matter. It isn't. I haven't been trolling around canvassing for people to get them to chime in, like some people might. The article deletion policy says that deletion is weighed based on the quality of the arguments. Vote stacking is irrelevant. Futhermore, this does not meet the criteria for deletion, pure and simple. It meets mutliple levels of notability. It is also verifiable by the sources given. Wikipedia deletion policies for
WP:GNG also states that "Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability." That does not say that secondary sources are a "MANDATORY" test for notability. Again, and I consider an article in a magazine that was published to be a good source. I also consider media interviews with the filmmakers and cast to be good sources. They were clearly conducted by SECONDARY MEDIA that was not owned, operated nor connected to the filmmakers. "Independent of the subject" excludes works "CREATED BY" the subject. An interview is not created by the subject. The subject is a cast member of that interview which is created by a third party. That third party has the ability to edit, to transpose, to publish or not to publish as they see fit, and which is out of control by the subject. The only primary source that is used as a backup to the other interviews is the film's official web page, which is not used as the sole source to establish notability. I think instead of people making bureaucratic comments about why they want this article deleted, they should give a reason why someone who might be interested in what actor John LaZar has been doing lately, or Karen Black or Clu Gulager or Amanda Fuller, why that person can't have access to this information solely based on a technicality and a overreaching judgment on the quality of the sources this early in the article's creation. This is not an indiscriminate article. Just about everybody involved in this film is of note, including two who have been nominated and/or have won Academy Awards. There are only five percent of women who are working film directors in Hollywood. Wikipedia is hardly cluttered with articles about women filmmakers, and clearly not cluttered with articles about films by women who have won Academy Awards, because there are only a few of them. This film also meets the criteria for inclusion for that reason, that it is "rare" and that women filmmakers need to be supported by the Wikipedian community and not gangbanged by overzealous editors. - Catpowerzzz (talk) 01:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Reply I'm pretty sure that your choice of expressions, it is "rare" and that women filmmakers need to be supported by the Wikipedian community and not gangbanged by overzealous editors. is a bit more than over the line, and designed only to inflame, not to persuade. This isn't adding to the discussion, it is only distracting from it. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As it stands, this article does not demonstrate notability, which is a bit surprising given its pedigree. But really, if that's the best sources that are available it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. All the cites are either primary sources, or are citing tangential information that isn't about the film. Perhaps once released it with gather some notability and secondary sources, but right now this isn't deserving of anything more than a mention on the Chris Innis article. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coment as to above. The article does demonstrate notability. It is about a recent Academy Award winner. That is not "tangential" information. All of the sites are not "primary" sources. Only one is. Wikipedia does not ban primary sources and does not mandate secondary sources. However there are FOUR sources, one is primary (the official web page), one is an OLD FASHIONED PRINT ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN A UK MAGAZINE and two are media interviews set up by the INTERNATIONAL PRESS ACADEMY. Now don't you guys have a few asteroids to argue about, that are more deserving of your time on Wikipedia? Created anything today? Or are we all out just to destroy and delete? - 01:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catpowerzzz (talk • contribs)

notability is
WP:RS sources even mention this film in passing. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
We are beating a dead horse. He doesn't seem to care about the policies here, he is misquoting them left and right, and spending his time on personal attacks. He obviously has a horse in this race, and doesn't care about consensus, only about keeping the article at all costs. I'm still surprised that more administrative action hasn't happened due to his behavior, and somewhat disappointed. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are beating a dead horse. Because you are wrong. Perhaps you are the one who needs disciplining. Why are you "disappointed" that there is no administrative action when we are merely discussing the situation here? Is that what you are after? Is that your real intention here, to get a rise out of this user to force an administrative action? Besides, since you and Ckatz are both administrators doesn't it border on conflict of interest
WP:COI for you to be involved in this discussion at all since you nominated the article and both you and Ckatz were heavily involved in editing it/using your admin powers? The bar is set higher for admins. They are supposed to be reasonable and not bite or attack new articles. They aren't really supposed to be stalking other users. You and Ckatz began deleting and attacking this article within two hours of its creation. TWO HOURS! And this was not a vandalism article or a hoax that was worthy of that kind of "rapid response." This article is too new to be deleted. This is a keeper that just needs to be built up more over time with more references and more content added as it goes. Have a nice weekend up in frigid Vancouver, Ckatz, and down in Lexington at the BBQ pork eating festivals, Dennis! (If you guys ever leave the computer, that is). : ) - Catpowerzzz (talk) 05:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Reply I am not an administrator. Never have been. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear that Dennis Brown is an administrator--I don't know where that comes from. Nor can either he nor Ckatz be accused of conflict of interest here--that's a strange claim, given Catpowerzzz's lack of neutrality in sustaining this article. An article need not be vandalism or hoax to be considered for deletion. There is no such thing as 'too new' to be deleted. What's of concern is not only Cat's tone, forum shopping here and here [1] to get a reaction they like, but a persistent misunderstanding of Wikipedia guidelines, the sort that occurs when a user so badly wants to keep content that they can see nothing else. To that end, every irrelevant rationale possible is tried above, even an inflammatory gender angle: Wikipedia is hardly cluttered with articles about women filmmakers, and clearly not cluttered with articles about films by women who have won Academy Awards, because there are only a few of them. This film also meets the criteria for inclusion for that reason, that it is "rare" and that women filmmakers need to be supported by the Wikipedian community and not gangbanged by overzealous editors is not only off point, but seeks to provoke the community. Yes, this kind of soapboxing may merit a look by administrators. 99.136.255.180 (talk) 13:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To anonymous user 99.136.255.180 - I have attempted to work out this disagreement with Dennis Brown (talk) on his talk page. By the way, it doesn't help things to have someone exacerbating this situation with comments or duplicate ANI accusations for this same discussion, while seemingly hiding behind a cloak of anonymity (particularly from an account that was recently created). In any event, it is my hope that Dennis and I (and any others who might be following along) are moving past this disagreement and acknowledging that there was a misunderstanding between two users who were operating in good faith, as Dennis suggested on his talk page. We are "agreeing to disagree" and hopefully moving on. Deletion is always supposed to be the last resort, especially when it is the discussion that has become the issue and not the content of the article. Content before procedure. Another user who works on a lot of film articles has recently made some changes to the page. I believe that is yet another sign that the article is something that can and should be a keep and that it can be improved in the future. - Catpowerzzz (talk) 02:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I have answered, after twice before asking you to keep in on the ANI page about your conduct, which is the proper venue for discussing the disagreement and your conduct, not here or on my talk page. I keep telling you, this isn't a disagreement between you and I. I'm not the one who filed the ANI grievance, someone else did, and many others besides myself have participated. Your comments to me just have been particularly "noteworthy". Dennis Brown (talk) 03:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is, to put it kindly, a misrepresentation. Having already sought to out me on the AIV page--to which I obliged so other editors would not be tarnished by accusations that I was one of their socks--you continue here to imply that I used an IP account to cloak something devious. As long as you're hopping about unchecked, alternately offering olive branches and making snide implications, I've got to say that this is just plain slimy. JNW (talk) 03:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, To Retired JNW (talk) who I am presuming is now taking credit for his anonymous postings that he posted as 99.136.255.180 (talk): I did not try to "out" you. You chose to post anonymously yourself. I merely suggested that posting anonymously with an IP address gives the appearance that you are a sock puppet of another participant. Sorry, if that is not the case, that's just how it "looks." I think if you are going to jump in on discussions with such toxic accusations and ANI nominations, your argument would have had more weight had you been a registered user and not cloaked behind recently "retired" accounts and/or anonymous IP addresses. You mention on your retired user page that you contribute anonymously only "when vandalism" occurs. This is not vandalism. For your arguments to have any credibility, you need to either "un-retire" yourself or step away from the platform. This game appears to be over. Please do not try to "reignite" the debate with more fuel, thank you. Dennis Brown and I seem to be moving on. I hope you can do the same. Either that, or please go back into "retirement." - Catpowerzzz (talk) 03:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources indicate it may be notable some day -- perhaps after release and independent press coverage. But for not it should be deleted.
Nobody Ent 14:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to Chris Innis, for now. The article could easily be restored later, if and when better sources become available. In the meantime, it's reasonable to think this might be a search term. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacs the sources to demonstrate notability.
Mtking ^(edits) 08:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete For the very well articulated reasons above on the reasons of notability. A merge/redirect would be inappropriate as it might encourage malicious editing of the chosen article doktorb _words^deeds 17:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete For now, but of course if we can have notability expressed in verifiable 3rd-party sources then by all means keep.
talk) 22:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete unless a secondary reliable source about it can be pointed out here and now. I haven't read all of the above, but I looked at most of the refs and did my own Google searching, and I haven't found any sources about this movie besides chrisinnis.com (primary) and some twitter and facebook stuff (not RSs). Dicklyon (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is exactly what
WP:CRYSTAL is meant for. Ish dar ian 00:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/It_Must_be_Nice&oldid=1137936650"