User talk:Falconettifalconetti

Welcome!
Hello, Falconettifalconetti, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Gallino, the Chicken System, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type helpme on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! red dog six (talk) 15:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Starting an article
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Proposed deletion of Gallino, the Chicken System


The article Gallino, the Chicken System has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable film lacking Ghits and GNEWs of substance. Claim to fame is it is a "weird movie."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. red dog six (talk) 15:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Gallino, the Chicken System for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gallino, the Chicken System is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Gallino, the Chicken System until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. red dog six (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Notability and neutrality
I thought I'd explain why I redirected all of Atanes' films to his article and dramatically changed his article's format. In the case of the films, it boils down to coverage in reliable sources. The films just didn't have coverage in sources that Wikipedia would consider to be notable. I did find film reviews for some of them in Film Threat, but we need more than one film review to show notability. As far as the other sources, they were predominantly from non-usable movie review blogs or linked to pages that no longer exist on the internet. The thing about movie reviews and movie review blogs is that very, very few of them are usable as reliable sources. This isn't to say that the Underground Film Journal is a terrible blog, but it's ultimately a blog. The vast majority of blogs are unusable as reliable sources in any way, shape, or form. Now as far as showing in film festivals go, that doesn't give automatic notability. Not all film festivals are notable enough to extend notability to a film. For example, the BUT Film Festival is not one that Wikipedia would consider to give notability. Showing as one of the main selections at the Cannes Film Festival would help give notability but even then many editors don't consider just releasing to be a sign of notability. You won't keep an article based upon it showing anywhere, not even if it was in a wide global release. A film releasing into a big name arena only means it's more likely that it will gain coverage in reliable sources. Now as far as the awards go, the International Panorama of Independent Filmmakers Award doesn't count towards notability, nor does the Weirdcademy Awards. Now don't take this as an insult. The vast majority of awards out there do not extend notability to article subjects, and that's looking at every award out there- sports, film, or otherwise.

Now the other thing I came across was that the articles had a huge issue with neutrality. They were all predominantly written from a fan's point of view and came across as a little promotional at times. Phrases such as "shows his eye for unusual imagery" are not considered to be neutral, as it's considered to be a matter of opinion. What might be unusual imagery to some might not be to others. The only time you can use a phrase like that is if you are quoting someone in a reliable source and even then you have to be very careful in how you quote it. As far as promotional content goes, sentences like this one: "In 2008 he collected his three most wild, bizarre and underground shortfilms into the CODEX ATANICUS, an anthology which is on its way to becoming a cult film, judging by enthusiastic reviews written by American indy movie critics." would be seen as highly promotional in nature. It's not neutral and it looks like you're trying to promote the anthology. It also doesn't help that you're quoting only ONE movie review, which links to a site that would never be considered a reliable source. Not only is it the type of site where anyone can submit reviews, but it's also a site that sells product- making it a merchant source. Merchant sources are completely unusable as reliable sources.

There's more, but that's pretty much the short answer to why I reverted all of the changes you made. If you unrevert the redirects on the movies one more time, I'll be forced to submit them to the WP:AfD process, which will most likely result in their deletion and reversion to a redirect. The films just aren't notable outside of their director, who has some pretty serious notability issues in and of himself. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   03:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)