Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Broken Springs

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 keep and improve. Notability appears to have been established, WP:COI issues can be fixed through editing the article. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Springs

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

Shoestring-budget zombie flick that satisfies neither WP:NOTFILM nor the general notability guideline. Article created by the film's publicist (see http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4197654/) presumably as a promotional tool. -- Rrburke (talk) 03:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You forgot to mention that the publicist was also an extra in the film. EEng (talk) 21:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Through meeting WP:NF per coverage. While it's a a Wikipedia-pity that someone might create an article on a subject in which they are interested, now that the article belongs to Wikipedia, we look beyond its author to the topic itself. In even a cursory search, I note articles in Kingsport Times News,[1][2][3] Dread Central,[4] Bloody-Disgusting,[5] and even a review of the film in Variety (imagine that),[6] and so far have found it screening at the Anaheim International Film Festival,[7] and Dances With Films. There's more... they simply need being added to the article through cleanup and regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but perhaps you and I are looking at different WP:NFs. The one I'm looking at calls for e.g. "full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." Could you perhaps quote a particular disjunctive criterion of NF, and pair it with the coverage satisfying that criterion? EEng (talk) 03:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it's you who are looking at WP:NF incorrectly. You're quoting an "atribute" that is set to encourage our looking for sources as if it the attribute were a required mandate... and that's not the case. Further, that phrase, while often mis-interpreted to mean that only the likes of Roger Ebert may review a film, allows reviews by sources qualified to speak about the genre being discussed as suitable. Wikipedia is not intended to include films only of big-budget major-studio blockbusters. Its not a popularity contest. We do not give special consideration to only those films who have the biggest advertsing budgets. Big budget or small, all may be considered, if as with all subjects, a film should satisfy the general notability guideline. Film Threat confirming the film is suitable. Variety, Kingsport Times News and Bloody-Disgusting writing articles about the film is suitable. Variety reviewing the film is suitable. It being written up in multiple reliable sources (even if not ALL sources) is suitable... and coverage is coverage, whether for a studio film or an independent.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Kingsport Times News pieces appear to be self-published articles by the film's publicist. The Variety review is a single paragraph in the online edition. The Dread Central and Bloody Disgusting "reviews" are just as short, of sub-professional quality, and one seems to have been entirely cribbed from the other anyway. The Film Threat coverage amounts to a repost of the Anaheim International Film Festival's own press release[8] about their lineup and a mention of the film's title and its director's name (i.e no extended coverage of the film at all) in another article. The film's inclusion in the Anaheim International Film Festival, an event of uncertain importance in its inaugural year, didn't seem to me to establish the film's notability.

In short, such "coverage" as I was able to locate was self-published, trivial (i.e. brief mentions without any significant treatment of the topic), or otherwise fell below the standards set out at WP:RS#Overview. The sole exception was the Variety review, but it was brief and, being solitary, couldn't in itself add up to "significant coverage".

And while it's true that the criteria listed at WP:FILMNOT#General principles are only examples of the kinds of attributes a film meeting WP:FILMNOT might be expected to exhibit, when, as in this case, a film meets not one of those criteria, presumably some other generally agreed-upon criteria of equal merit need to be substituted for them in order to judge notability. What are they here? -- Rrburke (talk) 19:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was adressing the comments of User:EEng, but appreciate that you answered for him. You failed to acknowledge that the film also received coverage in sources accepted as suitable for its genre. Wikipedia does not demand nor expect that New York Times or Washington Post review low-budget horror films, nor does it demand nor expect that horror genre RS Faqngoria or Film Threat review big-budget Disney films. We editors are expected to look for suitable sources where suitable sources for the subject being discussed might best be found.

Neither WP:GNG or WP:NF require "substantial" coverage, as "significant" does not mean the same thing. "Significant" means the subject must be addressed directly and in detail, which it is by Variety and the suitable genre sources Dread Central and Bloody-Disgusting... which sources are not simply trivial listings in a database. "Significant" coverage does not demand that the detail itself be all-emcompassing or substantive. Wikipedia is not intended to be the lackey of major stidios or big dollars. And while certain editors might wish it, guideline does not or expect nor demand that a low-budget independent horor film will have the same coverage as would a big-budget, highly-touted, big-studio-financed film. For what it is, Broken Springs has sufficient coverage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In further respose to Schmidt: I mentioned that the attributes listed in the guidelines are disjunctive -- and invited you to point to any other than the one I quoted. Beyond that, it's true that the various notability guidelines are only guidelines, but if you want to break out of them you should have a good reason. What's the reason here? EEng (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not "breaking out" of policy or guideline, and I do not think I could have been more clear. The topic has met policy, and the subject has been addressed directly and in detail in reliable sources... Variety and the suitable genre sources Dread Central, Bloody-Disgusting... and quite likely others as well. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per coverage in RSs, sufficient to reflect notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, which exactly are the reliable sources? The blog-posts by the movie's publicist, or Dread "review" reproduced in its entirety here? EEng (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC) The Dread review:[reply]

Anybody reading this ever drink moonshine? Let me warn you from personal experience it is some potent shit that you should be really careful with. Some batches are strong enough to raise the dead, I tell ya! Speaking of which ...A new clip from Neeley Lawson's indie zombie effort Broken Springs just hit online today, and it features a few tasty bits of CGI carnage. Get used to it, folks. It's here to stay! Dig on the clip below. Broken Springs tells the tale of three teenage boys who have their world turned upside down by tainted moonshine. They must rescue their loved ones and battle a marauding horde of zombies while fighting their way out of town.

Perhaps he read my comments, and felt that WP:NF has been met. You are always welcome to disgree, but do you feel compelled somehow to now question everyone who does not agree with you? So far, we have Variety and the suitable genre sources Dread Central, Bloody-Disgusting... and quite likely others as well. The burden of notability per policy and guideline has been met. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(I seem to have cut my own comments off in my post a bit above -- now completed by text shown above in underline.) I feel not compelled, but rather justified, in continuing to point out that despite your insistence (a) none of this matches anything called for in WP:FILM and (b) FILM is, in fact, the appropriate guideline (for all films, big-budget or not) absent some sensible justification for putting it aside. Setting up legalisms as links doesn't doesn't change any of this, and "V" is a content policy, not notability guideline. EEng (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any experienced editor will tell you that WP:V is a CORE policy, and verifiability is always required. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. But citing it in a deletion discussion, promotes the misconception that just because something verifiably exists and has been reported on (regardless of how trivially) it qualifies for an article here -- which appears to be the sticking point in this very discussion! EEng (talk) 13:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Denigrating the articles written by Jeff Bobo as "blog posts" shows a total lack of research or understanding on the part of User:EEng, as even the least bit of research shows that Jeff Bobo is indeed a real journalist, and not simply some online amateur... specially as we can find articles authored by him for many years as a staff write and reporter for the hardcopy The Harlan Daily Enterprise examples:1996 1997 1998 and he was writing as a staffer for the hardcopy Kingsport Times News for 4 years [9] before they began their online Times News and encouraged amateurs to submit articles. So he IS verifiable as a real journalist. That said, yes... he had a role in the film. Is Roger Ebert not allowed to write about the work of Roger Ebert? Or do we automatically discredit anything Ebert might write about his own work beacuse it involves him? Do we automatically cast suspician on any journalist who writes knowledgably about a topic of which he has personal knowledge?? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, the situations are not quite parallel: since the film's publicist appears to have both created the Wikipedia article Broken Springs and authored the pieces from the Times News which are being put forward as sources(!), it's rather more as if Roger Ebert, writing under a pseudonym, had created an article about his latest book and was trying to cite Roger Ebert's review of the book as a source. Once that ruse was discovered, I'm sure there'd be a race to see who could remove the reference fastest, and the entire article would probably be deleted as spam... (pregnant pause).

In fact, Roger Ebert is quite restricted in the kinds of contributions he can make to articles about the work of Roger Ebert: Roger Ebert would be expected to restrict his editing on topics related to his own work to uncontroversial edits. I wish the creator of this article would observe the same restrictions instead of doing things like creating spam autobiographies and articles about movies he's employed to publicize.

But as for the merits of the sources: first, they're useless for establishing notability because they are not "independent of the subject" (WP:GNG); second, they're unsuitable as sources for the article, partly for the same reason ("Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources" WP:RS#Overview -- emphasis mine), but more importantly because they lack the kind of editorial oversight that would qualify them as reliable -- that is, "sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (WP:RS#Overview): the online edition of the Times News is not such a source, because it permits users to create and post their own articles on its website. So irrespective of whether Jeff Bobo has been employed in the past as a journalist, for all anyone can tell these pieces are nothing more than self-published sources. Self-published by the film's publicist(!). Who also created this Wikipedia article about the film(!). -- Rrburke (talk) 16:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply My remarks inre Bobo were to address the claim made by an editor who did not look before speaking that he was some amateur blogger. And, as repeated above, and even discounting the involved journalist's (NOT using a pseudonym) articles in Times-News, we still have Variety and the suitable genre sources Dread Central, Bloody-Disgusting... and likely others as well. And while I understand some editors always desire the same substantive coverage as we might find for a big-budget studio blockbuster with the financing for a promotions blitz, Wikipedia is not a popularity contest and does not expect nor demand that same big-budget coverage for a low-budget independent horror film, and it is not a guideline mandate... specialy as "significant" and substantive" do not mean the same thing. Thst sources address the subject directly and in detail, even if not in great deatil, is per guideline. The burden of notability per policy and guideline has been met, and it actually serves the project to allow this article to remain and be further improved over time and through regular editing. Better for us all to research and expand and better source this article, than to rush to delete it out of a preconception that it is somehow unimprovable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please! EEng (talk) 22:36, 28 December 2010 (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.