Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mere Oblivion

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. No prejudice against renomination. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mere Oblivion

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Mere Oblivion (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)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Meticulo (talk) 13:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Meticulo (talk) 13:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subject of article is a short film (about seven minutes in length) and any notable details about it would be better included on the article page of the director, Burleigh Smith. Significant coverage seems lacking in the references cited, many of which either mention it only in passing, or appear to be blogs of unknown reliability. Meticulo (talk) 13:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following pages for deletion because they are about short films by the same director and have similar problems with notability:
Meticulo (talk) 14:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to keep all, variously on the basis of awards and festival showings. I have always been on the side of keep content here, but on review I think they pass GNG, sustained interest, and non trivial coverage. Aoziwe (talk) 01:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In response to BenjaminHomerBoyd, I'd deny this nomination is overly personal in nature. I first read the Burleigh Smith article after finding this vandalism in the article about the Luna Leederville (which admittedly could be a prank by a former student of Smith's rather than an attempt at guerilla marketing). I had no previous knowledge of the director or his work. However, the article about him seemed highly promotional and so I requested a sock puppet investigation, which was unsuccessful. I suspect, based on the narrowly focused contributions of BenjaminHomerBoyd, that he is more personally invested in the matter than I am. Also, the accusation of "unhelpful editing" is a bit rich, given this. Meticulo (talk) 13:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In response to Meticulo, please address the significant number of valid links to reputable sources on these pages, the fact that these short films have been accepted into and screened at hundreds of film festivals worldwide and all films have won a substantial number of awards. One cannot make an objective judgement to delete any of these pages when taking these facts into account. Therefore, the matter must be an overly personal one for you and you must, in fairness, cease and desist your personal campaign against this director and his work and withdraw from this discussion. BenjaminHomerBoyd (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and do not merge. Coverage is severly lacking. Inclusion in lists, passing mentions, two sentence blurbs, not significant coverage. Non reliable blogs do not contribute to GNG. None of the award are major. Festival showing (not the laughably ridiculous hyperbole exaggerated claim of hundreds as claimed above) do not show sustained interest, they show sustained promotion in submitting to festivals, not the stuff of notability. Do not merge as the article on the director is already an advert, an overly self serving autobio it does not need any more PR merged into it. And that is what these articles are, PR from a promotional SPA with a clear, undeclared conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not here to help you promote your films. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment: What's laughable is your staggering bias against these films and your refusal to conduct the most basic of research to familiarise yourself with the exceptionally wide range of festival screenings these films have had. Feel free to follow this link to view the dates and locations of over 140 festival screenings for one of these films. Festival screenings Blog references in these articles are minimal so drop that argument. Selection for festivals is highly competitive, so notability of these films is demonstrated. The films have screened at various Academy Award-accredited festivals. Perhaps you have heard of the Oscars? Your obvious bias here is disconcerting and calls into question all your contributions to Wikipedia. Suggest you conduct further study into films and film festivals and you refrain from further disruptive contributions. Fightdapower (talk) 08:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC) (Striking blocked editor's personal attack. Lourdes 11:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC))[reply]
  • In response to Duffbeerforme, you still have not addressed the exceptionally wide range of festival screenings these films have had, including screenings at Academy Award-accredited festivals. You have derisively dismissed mention of these screenings as "laughably ridiculous hyperbole" but this link, and others, clearly list the date, location and festival by name. By labelling Fightdapower a troll, you are trying to avoid the argument at hand. Your unsupported assertions are not helpful to Wikipedia. You need to back up your argument here or reverse your position. BenjaminHomerBoyd (talk) 02:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thankyou for that link. I've toned down my comment. That laundry list of self submitted showing (such as "student screening") still does not satisfy any of the notability guidelines, they are just an indication that he has submitted his (evidently quality) work to many festivals and a good number have decided to air it. There is a LOT of run of the mill festivals but they do not do much for notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your reply. What makes you conclude the films were self-submitted to the festivals? Typically, it is the producers' or distributor's job to arrange festival screenings. This individual is largely a writer-director. I'm also unsure what led you to decide these are "run of the mill" festivals. These festivals have been held for decades. Some of them are Academy Award-accredited. The festivals have patrons that include Clint Eastwood, Mike Leigh and the late Robin Williams. Three of the films have had screenings at Tropfest, reportedly the world's largest short film festival. The director even won a 12-month scholarship to study film in Rome at one of these festivals, an indication of the quality of these events. As for the "student screening" listing for Fixed, I believe this was because that particular film had a student contribution and it was shown to the student body. Hardly a reason to discount the tremendous number of prestigious festivals at which these films were shown. BenjaminHomerBoyd (talk) 04:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am well-aware of what you typed, it can be read directly above. You typed, "There is (sic) a LOT of run of the mill festivals", and I am saying this is not the case. Further, by your definition, all films that screen at festivals must then be "self-submitted", making this argument invalid too. BenjaminHomerBoyd (talk) 03:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect all to Burleigh Smith#Filmography. Most content in these articles deserve a place on the film makers biography. These are not feature films, they are shorts. There are some notable awards and some are widely screened, but none of the short films are groundbreaking or iconic, and there is not sustained coverage. I believe there is past precedent for this course of action. Unoc (talk) 07:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add nehttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mere_Oblivion&action=editw comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: DoRD, I see you've struck Gristleking's vote on this page for voting previously. Has a formal sockpuppet investigation, with due process, been undertaken? If not, why not? Please indicate where this user voted previously on this page and under what name. If you are unable to do so, you must remove the strikethrough for this vote. Thank you. BenjaminHomerBoyd (talk) 07:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (This is a fork of a discussion on my talk.) Short version: I will discuss this with the AfD closer if necessary, but will not reverse my action based on demands from an interested !voter. —DoRD (talk)​ 11:43, 3 April 2019 (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/Mere_Oblivion&oldid=890941247"