Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"web documentary"


 * 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  k eep. - Mailer Diablo 11:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

web documentary

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The author of this article, Russell Sparkman has removed some of the references to himself. But it still reads as a rather pretentious write-up. Is the concept notable? -- RHaworth 17:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC) Please Read I have added comments under the Discussion tab that you should read before rushing to judgment. Web Documentary is a very valid topic; people quoted in the piece are highly regarded in the field; the text first appeared in an article I was asked to write for the International Documentary Association's publication "Documentary," published in 2005 - I can get the exact month if you need; I've been producing web documentaries since 2000 - I know what I'm talking about; Do a search on the term "web documentary" in Google - 3 out of the top 10 returns are web docs that I've produced; I will do what I can to minimize any self promotional aspects of this; however, Rich Beckman, the UNC professor that's quoted in the article referred to me as a pioneer in this area when I presented thge keynote presentation at UNC's multimedia bootcamp in spring of 2004; work that we've done is important to talking about this topic; this is my first original entry into Wikipedia. I have some things to learn, obviously. Russellfsm 18:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Reads like an extended press release. No references, either. Closenplay 17:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Yeah this reads like a long(and boring) press release that is severly unrefrenced for the amount of content in the article. Felix 17:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It is still original research, something Wikipedia frowns upon. There is also the question if "web documentary" is a notable term and concept. --Askild 17:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps instead of its own article, a paragraph or two could go in Documentary film, under Other documentary forms. Closenplay 18:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Part of the point of creating an original entry is because a web documentary is not a documentary film, nor is it a form of documentary film. It is an entirely unique approach to documentary storytelling; it may share some characteristics with film, but it is altogether different. To bury it under Other Documentary Forms, without it's own original entry, would be a disservice to the topic, as well as the groundbreaking work that is being conducted. Please read the article I've listed under Additional Reading. Russellfsm 18:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Page name is in quotes which is incorrect. I moved the page to web documentary Antonrojo 18:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Is there supposed to be a category for this AfD? Russellfsm 19:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Maybe I'm missing something here but the topic is taught as a seperate concept from doc filmaking at a reputable university, has been discussed in the documentary industry magazine, has references and examples of the genre. The article may be flawed in any number of ways (I haven't looked at the hx for the previous versions), but that calls for rewrite and assistance to the creator of at least pointings to the appropriate guidelines, not deletion. WTF?-- killing sparrows  (chirp!) 03:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Opportunity to rewrite is appreciated, as is the offer of assistance. Thanks. Russellfsm 06:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I haven't looked at previous versions, but seems like a real and existing concept. No serious vanity in it. —Pengo 14:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I still lean towards folding it into Other documentary forms but at least the page seems more reasonable now. I did a little editing myself and could see letting it stay. Needs more substance if we keep it. Closenplay 15:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Questions/CommentsWho, in this system, ultimately makes the delete decision? Or makes the folding into another category decision? For instance, I appreciate Closenplay's tightening of the language - that helps. But judging by Closenplay's profile, he/she isn't an expert in this area. The article about web documentaries (which again, was commissioned by the International Documentary Association - and that happened after the editor heard me present this subject to the Jackson Hole Wildlife Film Festival) that I originally posted on Wikipedia quoted 3 experts in the area of journalism/documentary production -- you're free to Google them: Tom Kennedy (WashingtonPost.com), Chris Palmer (American University), Rich Beckman (University of North Carolina/Chapel Hill -- all were discussing the unique characteristics of the web documentary. Look them up to judge for yourselves whether their comments about web documentaries in my original article is credible or not. I will, from my knowledge of this area and subject matter be able to add quite a bit of substance to this Wikipedia entry. But I'm reticent to spend any more time on this if a) it still is at risk of deletion, and b) being considered as a sub-category of film documentaries. I don't know if it's appropriate here, but I've posted the original article on my blog. If it's acceptable to publish my blog's URL in this discussion so that others can read the original article for background on this discussion - in addition to the references that I've already provided -- I'll post the URL here later. Thank you. Russellfsm 15:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The decision to delete or keep is made by an admin but any editor can merge articles. What this article really needs is to be beefed up with material from reliable sources. (An expert's quote still needs to come from a reliable third-party source, otherwise it's original research.) Regarding my qualifications, don't kid yourself that even most of the editors here are "experts" in every area that they edit. Closenplay 20:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I have read both the Reliable Sources and the Original Research explanations, which brought me to the topic of "Citing oneself." Unless I'm missing something, based on Wikipedia's criteria, the article I wrote that was published in Documentary magazine by the International Documentary Association qualifies as a source (I can cite publication #, page, date, etc.), and that as long as I follow the NPOV policy, I can site that article as a source. In terms of reliable resources, the experts interviewed in that article qualify as Primary Sources, so as long as I cite the source, I should be able to refer to their opinions. Also, by providing the link to the Hunter College curriculum for Web Documentary, and to the Museum and the Web article, I believe that I'm establishing that I'm not advocating an unpublished theory. So, I believe that the subject matter passes the tests, and I will begin to gradually work on "beefing it up."
 * Keep I would vote to keep this, if for no other reason than the author is trying to comply with Wikipedia's policies. I am, in many cases, a deletionist my self. Shoot em all and let Jimbo sort em out, I say. But this is an article that could have potential, especially as technology and media evolves. Slavlin 04:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is properly referenced, the concept is real and the original author is planning to expand. Perhaps if he didn't have to spend so much time here defending the article it would already be in better shape. Once your own work has been published - it ceases to be original research. There is no problem citing your own published work on wikipedia - if relevant, appropriate and not a conflict of interest. Paxse 05:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.