Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crime Lords

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 redirect to Wayne Crawford. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Wikipedia has an "assume good faith" principle. Might wanna look it up. I've no interest in ruining this site, only improving it.Forteana (talk) 18:28, 26 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 willing 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]

Redirect to director Wayne Crawford, as the director has the sourcable notability this film lacks, and as one of his works, it can be mentioned in his article. I just spent a few hours expanding and sourcing the stub... and while the article is now encyclopedic, the film itself lacks the required notability per WP:NF. If its author wishes a userfication, fine... but I would urge his concentrating on improving the director's article rather that trying to turn this particular sow's ear into a silk purse. I gave it my best effort... but can admit defeat. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above as film likes notability but the director does not. Forteana's !vote (or is it a comment) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massacre at Ywahoo Falls simply saying 'Prove it', and the copyvio issues I see on this talk page, are a concern and suggest we might need to take a closer look at other articles he's created or edited. He doesn't appear to understand our policies/guidelines yet, although hopefully with guidance he will. Dougweller (talk) 09:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:40, 24 August 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.