Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4 Clowns


 * 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   keep. The Bushranger One ping only 00:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

4 Clowns

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Long unreferenced and orphaned article about a film that compiles scenes from multiple older films. doesn't appear particularly notable, and none of the sources I am finding on Google appear more then mentions that it exists. Sadads (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The article text is a copyright violation because its is plagiarism of the plot summary of the IMDB, which, although user-submitted, is covered in the IMDB's Terms of Use (see "Reviews, Comments, Communications, and Other Content" section). Jason Quinn (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Further reason to delete then, methinks, Sadads (talk) 16:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I misread the ToU. It is still plagiarism though. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep A stub, sure... but an article on a film that itself covers some of the very earliest of silent film comedey. While the nominated state had issues, they were easily addressable (even the copyvio), and even a few minutes time showed the topic as improvable. We would not expect that this pre-internet film 1970 film would have the same ongoing and persistant press and coverage of a recent blockbuster... and no, this article on a 1970 film will likely never be GA of even FA... but as an encyclopdia we do well to serve our readers by preserving our cinematic history. And while certainly the WP:GNG serves the project well, it is not the sole arbiter of what does or does not improve this encyclopdia for its readers.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the improvement, I am not particularly familiar with film topics, and was not aware of those particular sources. The claims to notability that are now in the article may propel it into meeting GNG, though it was not apparent from any of the databases or other materials I saw in the initial search or the initial article. I am not completely convinced, but if multiple other users find that satisfying, the Deletion review will have served its purpose in provoking adequate information about the film to become captured on the wiki, Sadads (talk) 01:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I am speaking as an active senior Wikipedia editor and not as a co-ordinator of project film when I make my guideline and policy supported statement above. To reinterate: while the GNG is a wonderful tool, it is not the sole determinant for what may or may not be of worth to this encyclopedia and its readers... specially when considering films that predate the internet by decades. We might even consider that besides its historical import, or it re-airing comercially more than 5 years after initial release, that in its being the final feature film project of Robert Youngson (1917-1974) and by its being considered "one of compiler Youngson's very best efforts", it is notable enough based upon those verifiable facts, even without SIGCOV for a 42-year-old film.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't really want to argue about this, but am afraid you are approaching this from a very narrow perspective, so thought I would highlight why I think that is the case:
 * You shouldn't be pulling the experience card. That is not at all an appropriate approach to AFD, remember Equality in future conversations. Besides, I have 3 years on you, with many more edits, and am an admin, besides having taught many people how to interpret the community in Outreach events. Interpretation of our policies is widely varient, which someone with your experience should know: every editor on Wikipedia has wide and varied experience on solving content problems on the wiki.
 * You are arguing for general notability via field specific issues (for example, I interpret the screening of a film on TV as having no validity in a Notability conversation, my experience speaks quite to the opposite: have you seen the kinds of clearly non-notable crap that makes its way on American television? Those films may belong in context of the producer's or actor's articles, but as independent articles, there is no way. Most often these films are filler from the back of the archive used to capture ad revenue when they know they can't compete with other channels.). Also, you are pushing this conversation towards a meta discussions on the purpose of Wikipedia and its rules. In general, the community has agreed GNG is the one and only real policy that should influence which content maintains independent articles. The only reason to WP:Ignore all rules, would be if we reach a serious impass, which we are not at.
 * I really appreciate your experience and the quality of the content you produce, and hope the consensus from other editors will point to how GNG should be interpreted in regards to this article, Sadads (talk) 20:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What you see as "narrow perpective" is my using the "wider perespective" of judging a topic notability through a wider and not a narrower perspective.
 * We're both admins and work different areas of the project, so no insult was intended. My experience and familiarity with film were offered to someone who admitted to being "not particularly familiar with film topics." Thank you for pulling out your own "experience card".  And while you may have experience in topics other than film, it is still important that I stress for others that the GNG is not the only determinant of notability.
 * While certainly all the separate film articles of any director might be merged to those director's article if stubby, we do not do so if the target would be overburdened or if doing so requires the removal of encyclopdic information and limits a reader's understanding of a topic. If "crap" cannot be determined as somehow notable, then "crap" will not have an article.
 * Your contention that "the community has agreed GNG is the one and only real policy that should influence which content maintains independent articles" is not a precise statement. The GNG is a guideline not a policy, and for valid reasons. What the community HAS agreed to, as is refelcted at the top of each guideline, is that guidelines are not writ in stone, are to be used with common sense, and are open to the consideration of exceptions that improve that encyclopedia.
 * Toward common sense and exceptions, the SNGs were created to address those times when the GNG is not so certain but a topic might be considered worthy of note even in absence of SIGCOV. In looking through the other end of the lens... if the GNG "were" the "only" determinant, why have SNGs at all?  The SNGs were created by the community to address those instances where exceptions to the GNG might be considered.
 * And worth sharing in case I am called a rabid inclusionist (its happened), is that I am always willing to opine a delete for film articles if notability cannot be asserted and verified.
 * So the only actual "policy" involved here is WP:V... and a fact being cited to a reliable source for mandated verifiability purposes does not require that such source itself "must" be SIGCOV... oh it could be, and fine if it were... buit while related, notability and verifiabilty are not the same thing.
 * And by the by, WP:IAR is not to be used in case of "a serious impasse"... that's for dispute resolution. IAR is to be used to improve the project... and more often than not it is the using of it that can lead to an impasse and WP:DR.
 * ...So my conviction toward notability is through consideration of community established SNGs: When looking at films that predate the internet by decades, and in the absence of SIGCOV, we ARE allowed to consider its historical import and the verifiabilty of it 1) re-airing comercially more than 5 years after initial release, 2) it being the final feature film project of notable director Robert Youngson, and 3) it being considered one of the director's very best efforts.  We can determine this film notable enough based upon those verifiable facts, even without SIGCOV for a 42-year-old pre-internet less-than-blockbuster film.
 * You may rest assured that I will continue improving articles, and hope that by doing so I might influence newer editors in how to create something to serve the project.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per above argument by Schmidt. This seems to be one of those movie articles that doesn't have the surplus of sources that others might (partially because it was released pre-Internet and wasn't a big mega film), but still meets notability guidelines in other ways. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep With the Maltin four-star mini-review, the Windsor Star piece on the initial release, and some of the other refs, the article meets our notability guidelines, now. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:48, 23 July 2012 (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.