Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Story of Negation


 * 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. T. Canens (talk) 23:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

A Story of Negation

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable film, only coverage is database listings and forums, does not meet standards at WP:NF BOVINEBOY 2008 11:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It has an IMDB page as mentioned before, which of course is not enough in itself but it should be taken into account (as IMDB applies a selective process for adding a movie page). Furthermore, it meets other criteria, particularly the one that requires that "the film represents a unique accomplishment in cinema", which seems to be the case here (film entirely made by a sole person and first feature-film fully shot with an action camera). In addition, it seems to be the first film ever made by Connan, therefore the page could illustrate this accomplishment as a first piece of work made by a notable person. Justinlived (talk) 13:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete due to lack of notability., IMDb is a database, so it will list all kinds of films, including those that are not considered notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. Notability is established by significant coverage from multiple reliable sources about the given topic. Also, notability is not inherited. IF the person is notable enough, then there should be coverage about the work produced. Connan's notability is not strong enough for this, and the person's general notability is potentially questionable. Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've nominated Tom Connan for deletion as seen here. Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep IMDB does NOT list all kinds of films because it requires a minimum "general public interest", as the FAQ section of the site says . Also, as stated above, it could meet the criteria that requires that "the film represents a unique accomplishment in cinema" due to its nature. Justinlived (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC) — Justinlived (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep It is clearly what I would call an "avant-garde" performance for an avant-garde artist. For that reason, this piece of art should be evaluated "on its own merits" according to the WP standards, which also state that an article is justified when the film "features significant involvement by a notable person and is a major part of his career". Same remark as for the Tom Connan article: Wikipedia is not (only) a mainstream encyclopedia. (If it was, then lots of other pages should be deleted right away.) Josephduvignere (talk) 00:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC) — Josephduvignere (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete per being TOO SOON, as even avant garde films by avant garde filmmakers need some sort of coverage to meet WP:NF and this one does not have it (yet). If it receives coverage after release and screenings, this article can always be restored. If its author wishes it reyurned to a draft space at User:Justinlived/workspace/A Story of Negation while we wait and while he studies our film inclusuion criteria, that should be fine.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 02:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * As said above (by Josephduvignere), a page can be created if the film "features significant involvement by a notable person and is a major part of his career", which seems to be the case here. Justinlived (talk) 12:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but as while this statement is per guideline, it remains an unverifiable claim for this filmmaker. No sources have been offered to show Tom Connan (itself at AFD) as notable enough for Wikipedia.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 00:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * type:
 * year:
 * alt year:
 * location:
 * filmmaker:


 * Delete per above. I can't find where this film has received any coverage in reliable secondary sources. IMDb is not usable as a sign of notability as it's really not all that difficult for someone to get a film on their site - they just have to show proof that the film is made or going to be made. (I also have to bring up that people have used the site to perpetuate hoaxes, as we've had at least one instance where someone succeeded in creating a hoax profile and then tried to use that to back up claims on Wikipedia. Not saying that this is a hoax film, just using this as an example as to why Wikipedia does not consider it a reliable source.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * According to WP standards, when the film does not pass the "normal" tests, it may STILL be notable and should be evaluated on its own merits. In that case, other criteria can be applied and the film is eligible if it represents a "unique accomplishment in cinema" or "features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person". Both criteria are met here. Josephduvignere (talk) 13:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps (and I am sympathetic), but Wikipedia's base policy requires that your assertion that it is a "unique accomplishment in cinema" or "features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person" be verifiable in reliable soures, and those sources have not (yet) been offered. Sorry. And please, a number of brand new editors offering opinions here and at the other AFD give a sense of a sock or meat farm trying to save the unsavable.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 00:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Pretty much what Schmidt said. What that guideline means for the most part is that a movie does not have to be your typical mainstream film (ie, Iron Man) in order to pass notability guidelines. However all films must show notability via coverage in independent and reliable sources like newspapers and the like. Please understand, you cannot just say that a film is notable without providing some sort of sourcing to back this up. No film is exempt to this guideline. I also have to echo Schmidt's comments on the amount of new accounts coming in: it gives off the impression that this is sockpuppetry, which is very easy to check for. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete unreleased, and no coverage in RS anywhere (for IMDb as a source, see WP:ELPEREN) Kraxler (talk) 02:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete searches turned up nothing to suggest notability.  Onel 5969  TT me 15:46, 26 August 2015 (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.