Talk:Mike Wilson (filmmaker)

Untitled
Dear people who choose to register for Wikipedia -- I suggest one of you nominate this article for deletion. It is garbage, and certain people seem to prefer procedural crap to actually getting things done. One of you should be able to "nominate it" and then we can clear this crap out -- unless the "objective" people actually are promoting some agenda after all and block the deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.85.24 (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I will note here that the "unbiased" person who insists on making a fuss here says: "this is a controversial deletion " and "person's work has won significant critical attention" -- I appreciate the attempt to make an end-run around my nominating it for deletion, since I am not "registered" with wikipedia. This guy's movie was reviewed by critics, yes, but what movie isn't? That doesn't mean he gets his own article, even if his movie does (look there -- the lack of sources there is also pretty stark).

Here are YOUR regulations: 1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. [NO] 2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. [NO] 3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. [NO] 4. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. [NO] 5. See Wikipedia:Notability (academics) for guidelines on academics [N/A]

This is completely uncontroversial. Widely cited? No. Unremarkable -- this bio has NO real sources, the film is barely notable. New theories or techniques in filmmaking or politics? No. Totally Unoriginal. Well known work about which other works are created? No -- this is, in fact, a bad spoof/knock-off on the other end of that transaction. Critical attention, significant exhibition, etc? Nope. Even among the huge body of anti-liberal spatter, this film was barely a blip on the radar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.85.24 (talk) 19:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You are right. There is a credible argument to be made that this person is not notable. There is also a credible argument that he is, because Michael Moore Hates America has recieved multiple independent reviews.


 * Either way, the place to make that argument would be at an AfD. As an unregistered user, you can't create AfD nominations. So you have two options:


 * You can register an account and nominate it for deletion in the regular way.


 * You can persuade a registered user to nominate it on your behalf.


 * On the whole I am not inclined to nominate it for you, though you might find someone else watching this page who is. I personally don't have a strong opinion on whether the article should be deleted or not, but I do have a strong opinion about the misuse of CSD tags. My removing the inappropriate A7 tag is only reason I'm in the picture here at all.


 * Thparkth (talk) 19:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I will not be a party to this "you are right, but you are also wrong" nonsense. It has not "recieved" multiple independent reviews. It has 8 total, and that's on Rotten Tomatoes which gropes out every possible review it can find from any credible source. All movies get a few reviews, and this one got passed across a couple desks because it's a big inciter -- not because it's a critically mentionable work. Tons of people have worked on movies that have some small number of reviews, and it's your precious guidelines that clearly indicate "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work" -- this criterion is NOT met. Period. Why you act like some kind of super-neutral nonsensical miser is beyond me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.85.24 (talk) 02:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear Thparkth. I will preempt your removal of all my changes to the article. I'm sure there will be some assertion or argument "by golly, this article has plenty of references and blah blah blah." And that's fine except that there are really only two "sources" and these "sources" are not sources at all. If you're going to try to defend this article's existence by these policies of yours, I will force the article to conform to them until it is obvious that it cannot -- then you can do your machinations or procedures or whatever you like, and we'll see how quickly it gets deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.85.24 (talk) 16:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey all, I have come across this discussion and am inclined to agree with some of the voices criticizing this article. It feels like a case in which the filmmakers page only exists because there is a page for his film, this is clearly reflected by the sources that furnish this article. Rockandrollherold (talk) 20:19, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mike Wilson (filmmaker). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090912133157/http://www.doublefeatureshow.com/2009/01/thing-michael-moore-hates-america.html to http://www.doublefeatureshow.com/2009/01/thing-michael-moore-hates-america.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)