Talk:Flu Bird Horror

Deletion
This article should not be put up for deletion because I am still improving it. SteveAltenRocks (talk) 10:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The reception section is fine, please don't delete it again
The reception section is fine, please don't delete it again  D r e a m Focus  10:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Non reliable sources are not fine and they will continue to be removed. Wikipedia is not here to promote random bloggers personal opinions nor do their opinions matter. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 13:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Two editors want it in, and one is against it. That isn't a blog, but a legitimate review site, meeting all requirements, with editorial oversight, as already mentioned in the AFD.  And your comments in the edit summary were immature and inappropriate.   D r e a m Focus  14:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Two editors wanting it in does not make it a reliable source. It does not become reliable based purely on the remarks of two non-neutral editors who, quite frankly, have little experienced in crafting quality articles. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 15:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Another passive insult? Your idea of crafting quality articles, usually involves deleting as much from them as possible, keeping them as short and uninteresting as possible.  And how are we non-neutral?   D r e a m Focus  17:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, a simple statement of fact. Michael has expanded many stubs, but as far as I know he has never taken an article to B class, much less GA or FA/FL. You rarely do actual editing and, again, have never taken an article to any high quality class. And yes, we all know you that don't agree with Wikipedia's ideas of quality, but they are what the community has determined are appropriate criteria. Fortunately, high quality is determined by consensus, not you personally. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 17:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So my not spending time on articles bringing them to GA or FA status is somehow a strike against me? Wow.  Thanks.  Quite frankly I rescue articles that may never be GA or FA because such are the ones in deepest need of some care.  I'd rather do that than spend time tweaking an easier one into some more glorified status.  As you graciously concede, I do improve articles tossed on the ash heap... and despite the denigration, I am quite proud of doing that as my small part to improve Wikipedia.  If I am able to save an article from deletion, it has all the time it needs to one day become FA if it is destined to happen. But that upgrade is never a requirement for an article... only a hope, and Wikepedia does not expect it of me or of itself. The most difficult task is pulling them out of the fire in the first place. So thank you.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It is, again, a statement of fact, not a personal attack, so making one at me was really not necessary (nor were the excessive wikilinks that have nothing to do with the topic). My point was that you have never done such work, you have no real experience in the process, nor in the examination (and defending) of sources as reliable. When you deal with the GA and FA processes, the quality of the sources is thoroughly and heavily examined, and unreliable ones are not acceptable. If the sources added here now could not meet that examination, they and what they source would have to be removed. If those are the only sources in the article, then nothing would be left in the article, again leaving it same way it was found before it was "rescued" and again back to being an unnotable stub. Reliable sources are not "optional" nor are they up to just an editor's arbitrary view, but up to the actual consensus and guidelines of Wikipedia and, when questioned, must be evaluated and discussed, not just "two people say they are nice and that's all that matters."-- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 22:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No attack was made by me. Your "statement of fact" was used in a manner that was offensive and derogatory. Yes, I try to improve articles tossed on the ashheap... not all... but a few that I have time for and that are worth the investment of effort.  Yes, you nominate articles for AfD... not all... but a few whose improvement you feel is not possible.  An article safely tucked away on the shelf has the luxury to be crafted into a GA or FA over time.  One nominated for deletion does not have that luxury until AFTER it is saved, if possible.  Which is the more difficult task?  Tweaking and refining over months or years?  Or fighting the loud ticks of the clock as the hours anf minutes count down to deletion?  Why use my choice to fight the ticking clock as means to belittle my contributions?  Or speak as if I could not possibly understand what makes a source reliable in context to what is being sourced?  You have stated your opinion quite clearly and I am taken aback at how my own contributions are used to belittle even as faint praise is offered.  This is not the first time you have nominated an article for deletion was ultimately saved despite your protestations of unsalvagability.  That others might have valid opinions that differ from your own does not make anyone "wrong" or make anyone "right".  It most specially does not call for using an editor's choice of contributions in a dismissive manner so as to belittle the editor.  Consensus is built through use of policy, guideline, community, and common sense.... not by making someone else's contributions seem less valuable.  Thank you for sharing.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it wasn't your intention (anymore than it was my intention to be offensive or derogatory) but I found the statement "I'd rather do that than spend time tweaking an easier one into some more glorified status" as offensive. It is not easy nor quick, and I dare say far far harder work than just googling real quick, throwing some links on an article, and calling "keep". Nor are all articles I have crafted to GA or FA just tweaks. I have taken articles from stubs shorter than this article to GA, including, FYI, other Sci-Fi B-movies (which I am rather fond of), and it took me a few weeks, not months. I have also, as you know, saved articles from deletion within hours, while doing so in a quality manner because I do generally work with B+ in mind, not just salvation. Now, you, unlike many ARS members, do at least add some content from those links to the article, but you still do not actually work towards high quality article, but taking stubs from stubs to start and there is nothing wrong with that (and I'm sorry if you thought I was implying there was). Different editors contribute in different ways. If you take it as an offense that I pointed out your lack of experience in those others areas where you do have to actually defend the sources claimed in an article, then I'm sorry, but it is the basic truth. As is the truth that you have, in the past, added other unreliable sources to other articles in your zeal to save them from deletion. I am also speaking from my own experiences in having to defend horror review sites in the GA reviews of other similar type movies, and what I learned from those. Yes, I expect DF to disregard anything and everything I say because he completely disagrees with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, but you generally seem willing to work within them and are usual far more open to being disagreed with. I apologize if in somehow my responses to Dream Focus upset you or felt insulting. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 00:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. We both work in different ways toward the same goal.  A while back I recognized a difficulty in determining what is or is not a reliable source when working on notability (even if minor) for small-budget independent horror or cult films. I invite you to take a look at a work-in-progress at Reliable sources for horror films where I have been involved in quite a bit of research toward just that goal.  I am not a complete neophyte in what can or cannot make a genre-specific source worth considering. The page has far yet to go, as it is still rough... but you can see that I have been doing my homework.  Indeed, I will likley swing several of them out into their own articles soon, as a few seem quite reliable "for what they are" and for themselves being used as sources for other already considered RS. Oh, I would not trust them for views on politics or even gardening... but for horror films... well, there are many worth serious consideration, as guideline instructs "in the context with what is being sourced". And actually, now that I think of it, your input there could be helpful, as it is charting territory away from mainstream press to an "undiscovered country". Wanna be a trailblazer?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you haven't already, I'd highly recommend seeking input from the Horror project. If they don't already have a resources page (similar to what the Films and Anime/manga projects have), it would be a good addition. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 00:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So its a good start C? I thought to be further along before going to project horror.  However, your suggestion of more input is excelent.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Reception
I have brought these two reviews to the talk page from the article page. When they have been confirmed at reliable, they might return to the article. Others will be welcome as well.
 * E Splatter determined it a bad film, finding the acting bad and the script silly, but still found it "at least somewhat entertaining."
 * Fear Scene notes that "All in all this film wasn’t a complete waste of time. It definitely wasn’t great but as I said before it was an interesting concept".
 *  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)