Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/12 O'Clock Boyz


 * 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 delete. There is a clear consensus of Wikipedia editors below that the article does not meet the specific notability guideline, WP:NFILM. Daniel (talk) 03:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

12 O'Clock Boyz

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Sourced only to an official website and the U.S. Copyright Office (WP:PRIMARYSOURCE, and irrelevant for notability purposes) since creation in 2016. A WP:BEFORE search turned up some social media sites (LinkedIn - (I'm not signed up, so no link), Twitter - 1) and another official site, apparently dedicated to listing the progress of copyright infringement lawsuits (not notable per se per WP:CASES). The only thing I found about the film itself was this passing mention - "Pee Wee and Moe-Town produced a video in 2001 that captures many of the 12 O’Clock Boyz performing stunts and cutting up for the camera", i.e. not a documentary film as claimed in the article. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

KEEP BLACK HISTORY #1 -- Thanks for inviting me. This article meets the general notability guidelines. The coverage on the 12 O’Clock Boyz film and its related legal issues come from reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

Additionally, the 12 O’Clock Boyz intellectual property news is ranked Number 8 on the intellectual property news from all over the globe by IPpetite.

This original 12 O’Clock Boyz film and its related legal issues are covered on Yahoo News, Film related sites, Intellectual Property News sites, Legal News sites and Court websites.

In addition, Judges have written legal opinions related to the original 12 O’Clock Boyz film that is read by both law students and practicing attorneys. The 12 O'Clock Boyz Film is the subject of a reasoned opinion of the highest court in a legal jurisdiction. Thus making the original 12 O'Clock Boyz article notable. . Also read WP:CASES

Narky Blert, if you look carefully with an "objective eye" you too will see all this information. This is a notable article that needs to have the additional references mentioned above added. We are here to improve the article. Matt at InvestigativeNews (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per Notability (films), films are considered notable if:
 * "The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." The article contains no information on distribution and no reviews.
 * "The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following":
 * "Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release." The currently includes no information on impact.
 * "The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release." The article includes no such survey.
 * "The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release." The article includes no information on such screenings.
 * "The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema." No such information in the article.
 * "The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking." No information on awards of any kind.
 * "The film was selected for preservation in a national archive." No such information.
 * "The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program." No such information.
 * In my view this article fails all the criteria. Dimadick (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete This "film" fails all the criteria of WP:NFILM. Also, the creator of the article was blocked, but seems to have recreated their account under a new name to argue for keeping (see above). Donaldd23 (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable film per our criteria. Note, though, about the block of the original creator and their new name, Donaldd23, that is not a problem. They were softblocked, purely for the username, and invited to create a new name that complies with our rules, which "Matt at InvestigativeNews" does. They get to discuss here. Bishonen &#124; tålk 22:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC).
 * Ok, thanks for the clarification. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

KEEP BLACK HISTORY #2-- The original 12 O’Clock Boyz film from 2001 is now in the ARCHIVES of the city of baltimore paper. ARCHIVES

According to Wikipedia:Notability_General Principles, the general notability guideline states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.

Here we have listed TEN coverage from reliable sources on the subject. Plus the ARCHIVES information. The film meets the general notability. The film is historical film in the urban dirt-bike culture. I say do not delete black history. And this is why the United States has black history month so that Americans can celebrate black history. If you do not understand black history say so but don’t use ignorance to delete a historical black film’s page. Matt at InvestigativeNews (talk) 02:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:NFILM. This one is something I know plenty about (I mean, look at the user name). The 12 O'Clock Boyz are well known in the Baltimore area. However, the FILM itself is not. The links all listed above are copyright info, NOT about the film. I also do not appreciate the idea that this is "erasing black history", especially when there is a notable film: 12 O'Clock Boys already on this group. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

KEEP BLACK HISTORY #3 --- From my username, it is clear that we perform investigative research work. The original 2001 film is WELL-KNOWN. It’s twenty years later since the original 2001 film was made and people are still talking about the original 2001 film today.

As stated before, according to Wikipedia:Notability_General Principles, the general notability guideline states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.

Here we have listed over TEN coverage from reliable sources on the original 2001 film. Plus the ARCHIVES information. The original 2001 film clearly meets the general notability. Keep black history. Do not delete black history. Matt at InvestigativeNews (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nom as it fails WP:NFILM. Kolma8 (talk) 20:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete non-notable film. I took a look at all the references provided by User:Matt at InvestigativeNews and none are significant coverage of the film or of the associated lawsuit.
 * 1 is a routine entry in a "database of movie lawsuits".
 * 2 is a single paragraph in a blog which similarly lists movie-related lawsuits.
 * 3 is an article about an alleged defamation of the group, unrelated to the film, and mentions the film lawsuit in the final paragraph.
 * 4 is a three sentence paragraph describing the lawsuit on a legal website.
 * 5 is a somewhat lengthier description of the lawsuit from a press release, in a website related to trademark issues.
 * 6 is another description of the lawsuit in a legal website, apparently taken from the same press release as #5, as much of the wording is identical.
 * 7 is a short note on the lawsuit, taken from a press release.
 * 8 is simply a copy of a legal filing related to the case.
 * 9 is a link to WP:CASES.
 * 10 is an article about the group, which contains one sentence about the film.
 * 11 is an article about the group, which contains two sentences about the film.
 * None of these references do anything to establish the notability of the film. CodeTalker (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - despite the creator’s loquacious defence of the article, they have not provided any sources showing significant coverage that goes towards meeting WP:NFILM. For what it’s worth I also find a bad taste being left in the mouth by their assertions that by deleting this article we would be ‘deleting Black history’ or do not understand Black history. ƒirefly  ( t · c ) 21:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

KEEP BLACK HISTORY #4 FYI, if Black Lives Matter or even Antifa_(United_States) knew that you were out here trying to delete a historical Black Film's page that clearly meets the Wikipedia:Notability_General Principles, they would report you and your friends to the authorities for the violations. Matt at InvestigativeNews (talk) 22:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm going to highly suggest you to strike, or remove this comment. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Does not pass any part of Notability (films). The actually-notable 12 O'Clock Boys makes a passing mention of the earlier work, that is sufficient. ValarianB (talk) 13:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete and suggest page block for the article creator as he has sufficiently weighed in.      StarM 17:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

KEEP BLACK HISTORY #5 -- Wikipedia this 2001 film is a legendary film. Legendary The article needs improvement. And the historians are here to do so. Matt at InvestigativeNews (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Every link you have posted is a court case or a trademark. There is NOTHING in a reliable source to indicate any sort of notability. Repatedly posting your comments here may result in a block from the page for bludgeoning this conversation. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Mark sure to read the second paragraph carefully in Legendary.  It talks about the film being legendary. It's not talking about any lawsuit. By the way according to our research, there was no lawsuit in 2014 which is when this Reference No. 12 is dated.  Matt at InvestigativeNews (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The document in question is regarding a lawsuit from a lawyer's office. And it says "legendary", so what? It's not a reliable source, it's a letter from a lawyer. RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Response: No law firm will put their professional law license and reputation on the line just to say the film is "legendary". The Baltimore law firm performed their research and due diligence and found that this 2001 film is a legendary black film. And they seem to mention this fact in their communication letter. This Wikipedia page is to a legendary film as the Baltimore law firm found. This Wikipedia page must not be deleted. The article needs to be improved. FYI, Reference No 12 is dated in 2014, and our research does not show any lawsuit in 2014. So the 2014 letter is not about no lawsuit. Matt at InvestigativeNews (talk) 01:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I have blocked Matt from this page. He has weighed in. If another admin feels we need further input, feel free to unblock him.      StarM 01:35, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is nothing but PR tripe. WP:NOTADVOCACY applies. 174.254.199.133 (talk) 23:38, 7 March 2021 (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.