Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Drifts: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
←Blanked the page |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''POINT 1''' |
|||
There are many articles of upcoming films published at Wikipedia that have not been proposed to deletion. Why do you insist in deleting Drifts article (and probably similar ones) and seem unable to explain the contradiction? This is unacceptable. |
|||
See Wikipedia articles about upcoming and unreleased films like [[Labor Day (film)]], [[The Secret Life of Walter Mitty (2013 film)]] [[The Fantastic Four (film)]], [[The Good Dinosaur]], [[Finding Dory]]. |
|||
You will find MANY MORE here: |
|||
[[2013 in film]], [[2014 in film]] |
|||
or here: |
|||
http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Category:Upcoming_films. |
|||
''' How do you explain such exceptions? '''. |
|||
Most of these films will be distributed (so it seems) by the [[Hollywood]] system. Their Wikipedia articles will certainly be kept, but articles about really [[independent film]]s, produced outside the system, MUST BE ELLIMINATED, as you implicitly argue. Why? Are you promoting the system and fighting against independent producers? '''Are you defending powerful commercial interests against cultural ones and against freedom of expression? Whom are you serving?''' |
|||
'''POINT 2''' |
|||
[[WP:NFF]] (Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films). |
|||
Drifts, like other films having published articles, is no future film, it is a completed film, in fact not yet commercially distributed. '''Only commercially distributed films are allowed to have Wiki articles?'''. If so, this is an aberration. [[Experimental film]]s, [[Avant-garde]] films, [[Art film]]s, that in many cases never had commercial distribution do not deserve Wiki articles? Must articles about seminal films like [[Chronique d'un été]], for instance, be eradicated from Wikipedia because they have no references of notability? |
|||
WP:NFF '''obsolete, intricate and contradictory''' '''''"rules"''''' need a deep and radical revision. Instead of fighting arbitrarily for articles deletion you should (this is an ethical exigency) do your best to correct such errors, if in fact you respect the basic principles of Wikipedia and wish to collaborate with good intentioned editors. |
|||
'''POINT 3''' |
|||
Hasty or authoritarian proposals to deletion are negative, especially in the case of articles translated in several languages and kept with no objections for months. Moreover, being linked to many other articles and consolidating relevant information, '''such actions should be avoided with no previous careful analyses'''. |
|||
'''POINT 4''' |
|||
'''Notability''' |
|||
How can upcoming films satisfy criteria of notability? It is ABSURD and a NONESENSE insisting with such an argument to delete an article about a non released film, since it has not yet been commented. There are HUNDRED of such articles published at the Wikipedia. Stubbornness? '''If not, how can one argue it is no notable film?''' |
|||
[[User talk:Tertulius]] 02:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:*Here are some explanations: |
|||
::# Some of those films have a lot of coverage in reliable sources to merit it being kept. Others don't and should probably be deleted or redirected to an appropriate target. The existence of another article means nothing as far as Wikipedia's notability and AfD standards go. ([[WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS]]) |
|||
::# If you want to propose new standards for film notability guidelines, feel free to propose them at [[Wikipedia talk:Notability (films)]]. I'll be quite honest when I say that nobody is going to change the rules to where you will be able to keep an article without any reliable sources that establish notability. |
|||
::# The existence of this page on other language Wikipedia sites doesn't mean anything. Every site has their own rules and standards for notability, so something that might pass on another Wikipedia won't pass here and vice-versa. It might also mean that the page on the other site hasn't been deleted yet. We've had people try to argue this, only for the page to get deleted on the other site for much of the same reasons you see here. As far as this page having existed for any period of time, that doesn't mean anything. It just means that nobody noticed it before this point. As far as it being linked to other pages, that doesn't matter either. '''The only thing that will save this article is coverage in reliable sources about the film.''' |
|||
::#It's difficult for any non-mainstream, big blockbuster film to gain notability. I'll give you that. However at the same time we can't relax those standards just because it might seem unfair. '''It's not up to Wikipedia to make up the difference in media coverage for anything.''' We can't give something an article because the media doesn't cover Derivas while it will fall all over itself to mention other films or topics that seem inconsequential to you or to someone else. That's not how Wikipedia works. |
|||
:I hope this explains some of the arguments you've brought up. On a side note, you should really post arguments in the main section for the AfD or on the talk page for Derivas. This page is normally left blank. [[User:Tokyogirl79|Tokyogirl79]][[user talk:Tokyogirl79|'''<span style='color: #19197;background-color: #FFFFFF;'> (｡◕‿◕｡)</span>''']] 03:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC) |
|||