Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crime Lords

Crime Lords

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

Forteana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Non-notable film. One-sentence article is unsourced. Could not find evidence of meeting WP:NFILM. No reviews from nationally known critics, no awards etc. SPA creator and possible COI issue. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to assert without foundation that a new editor, one who is apparently attempting to contribute to the project through contributions to many articles,[1] even with the occasional (and predictable) newcomer boo-boo... is a "SPA" or "Vandal" or "COI" feels just a tad on the bitey side. We were all new once, so I might hope that the nominator could perhaps avoid casting unfounded aspersions in the future. How about we assume the best and not the worst, and show a little good faith, huh? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

(Additional news archive searches: "Crime Lords"+"Wayne Crawford" "Crime Lords"+"Rand Ravich"

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The "Vandal" template is not me calling people vandals but to give easy access to the creator's contributions and such. I could use a different template but this shows all the important bits without being too long, unlike this one:

Forteana (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Before listing on AfD, I generally have a look at the person's edits. In this case, the article creator has created a large number of articles, all to do with films and producers, many of them interlinked, many of questionable notability. There's also little attempts at discussion, but simple pig-headed mass-production of borderline notable topics. From experience, this strikes me as suspicious. It makes me believe that they have no intention of participating here, but just to unleash their creations. However, maybe I'll be more conservative in future. And I do try to help somewhat if they ask. Now, do you think the film is notable? Christopher Connor (talk) 03:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... Unless it is the work of a very obvious vandal, or the work of a sockpuppet of a banned or blocked user, the implying of some underhanded motive on the part of a new editor often tends to negatively color a discussion before it even gets started. And, as new users are usually trying to feel their way blindly, I'd far prefer to err on the side of caution, as nothing they do is irrepairable. In this instance, and since Crime Lords was not listed at the film delsort (which I subsequently added), I came across it only when this particular new user asked a question at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Strangers: Part II (2nd nomination). That he is asking questions and trying to understand WP processes, I think AGF toward his efforts is indeed the far preferred option... and that he IS willng to engage in discussion is a decent reason for friendly guidance. As for this particular article... I believe I have til the 19th to find out... and article improvement will continue as I am able. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]