Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argo (film)


 * 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   no consensus. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Argo (film)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete Another prod removed by a serial deprodder. Claims must be notable because the film allegedly won awards... the awards in question are not notable awards per our standards, strictly local ones of no known importance. Article was created by an account with a clear COI to promote the film and the writer/director. DreamGuy (talk) 13:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I was the original prodder, and while I assume good faith on the the part of both the deprodder and creator, the fact remains that there are no independent, reliable sources to establish the notability of this film, or verify any of the information in the article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —PC78 (talk) 22:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. A short film shown only at very small film festivals. Hairhorn (talk) 02:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is an award winning short film is notable as evidenced by the awards won at several film festivals. I have found more independent links, reviews and references at, , , , , to establish the notability of this film and/or verify the information in the article.Varbas (talk) 04:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Link 2 is the personal webpage of the writer/director, while link 5 is the webpage of the writer/director's production company: both violate WP's prohibitions against self-published sources and non-independent sources. None of the other 4 links provide the level of significant coverage required to establish notability of the film.  UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The article has been improved since nomination and is the award-winning directorial debut of Jordan Bayne in conjunction with award-winning Michael Knowles. As the debut of Bayne and in winning her recognition, it meets WP:NF per "The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career."  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The person isn't really notable either (and if your argument is that this small film the "major part" of her career then she's clearly NOT notable), and the alleged awards do not appear to be significant in the slightest. You can't just make a circular argument that your unsupported assumption that one of the set is notable is proof of notability of the others and expect that to hold up here. That section of WP:NF was never intended to be used the way you are trying to abuse it. DreamGuy (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Circular argument? Thanks for for the good faith. I need not "prove" notability for the individual (as her notability is already accepted by her inclusion on Wikipedia). I need not "prove" notability for the film's awards, past citing the film itself receiving recognition meeting the WP:GNG. What I do is properly read guideline WP:NF and see that as her writing and directorial debut... as a major first in the career of a notable person, the film meets the inclusion criteria...  and those criteria do not demand that she be an Academy Award winner in order to be notable. Her notable is already covered in WP:N and WP:PERSON. Further, your nomination has been made some interesting good faith choice of delete argumants...
 * "...serial deprodder..." acts to denigrate the deprodder, who might himself have fair reasons for his deprodding. Looking at the edit histories of User:Varbas, I see someone who is engaged in improving the project and following guideline. I see no sanctions against him.... no blocks as being disruptive...No ANIs or RfCs... WP:AGF in his actions is a worth keeping to heart.
 * "...the film allegedly won awards..." is provably not "alledged", as even the most minor of WP:AFTER searches show that it did indeed win multiple awards.
 * "...the awards in question are not notable awards per our standards..." runs directly contrary to guideline. WP:Notability (films) lists some awards, but specifically states that "standards have not yet been established to define a major award". Consensus must be gained and standards actually set before making such an assertion as if it were fact.
 * "...strictly local ones of no known importance...." also runs contrary to guideline and precedent which accepts that as long as we are not talking about a blue ribbon at a neighborhood bake sale, widespread local notability affecting a few hundred thousand or a few dozen million is as notable per guideline as something affecting 300 million. Last time I looked, Texas and Tacoma were not exactly local areas of no known importance. A minimal effort to search for the film festivals online shows they have received attention and web traffic at the various sites show hits in large numbers.
 * "...created by an account with a clear COI ..." is a statement that unfortunately colors proper neutral consideration of the article. Once ANY article is on wikipedia it belongs to wikipedia and not the author. It is also well worth pointing out that the author's first edit was in October 2007 and his last in March 2008. He has not touched Wikipedia for 14 months. Any possible concern for COI has been addrrssed through proper WP:CLEANUP and the interests of many other editors over the last 14 months. That he might be a Jordan Bayne fan? So what? She has lots of fans... and some of them also edit wikipedia and her article without shouts of COI. Again for emphasis, his last edits to the article were 14 months ago.... any "concerns" of COI have been long since removed by the multiple edits of the many other editors since he left then.
 * Thank you and happy editing.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Listen, we've been disagreeing on several AFDs, especially since you seem to vote Keep on everything and put in sources that violate WP:RS to try to justify keep, but the fact of the matter is that Varbas has been shown to be using multiple accounts and is considered to be very possibly be a sock of a banned editor, and you have encouraged him to lie about those results. The COI on this article was clear, and certainly notable. The fact that you rallied a bunch of people who vote Keep on every article they see, including some new accounts made suspiciously at the same time User:Esasus was banned for suing sockpuppets for using socks to deprod articles without reason and for voting keep on AFDs doesn't mean that this article truly has passed notability requirements, just that you can, at best, tagteam to show a false consensus and, at worst, work with a team of sock accounts to get your way. DreamGuy (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes... sadly, we have been at opposing sides of arguments, but since I provably do not "vote keep on everything" and actually improve an occasional article (because I believe in preserve, potential, and improve), I ask that you refrain from making such blatantly false claims. Further, I find your statement that I have "rallied a bunch of people" and that I am "tag teaming" to be most unhelpful to a discussion about improving this article, as I actually DO try to improve them. Please go and re-read the POLICY WP:CIVIL and behavorial guideline WP:AGF. And how about not continually attempting to obfusccate merits of comments with repeated digression about USER:Varbas. Investigation found him worth a little good faith, even if you refuse to do so. Editors may read for themselves HERE, so as to not further derail this deletion discussion.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The awards from the festivals seem to indicate notability. I say keep.   D r e a m Focus  19:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You say Keep on everything. DreamGuy (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Everything hasn't even been nominated for deletion (Articles for deletion/Everything). Bongo  matic  04:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Raises a good point tho. What would happen if we deleted Everything? Would we all disappear? Would Jimbo be mad? --Buster7 (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Notability seems to be a given. Editor Schmidt makes excellent points and references. The spotlight may be on a smaller stage than a Hollywood Blockbuster Opening but, nonetheless, the film did receive some obvious level of notoriety and achieved awards. Would the Cannes Film Festival of 1939 have met WP:Notability awards standards?...(assuming, of course, that the Internet and WikiPedia were in existence 70 years ago) Guidelines are not etched in stone. Each case should be judged on its own merits. Notibility should not even be questioned in this case.--Buster7 (talk) 04:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per awards and improvements. Granite thump (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Continuing to attack me personally is not useful to this discussion, and please follow Wikipedia behavioral guideline Please do not bite the newcomers. Varbas (talk) 03:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * NOTE I have removed the misleading SPA tag placed by nominator DreamGuy against editor Granite thump, as Granite thump has made NUMEROUS edits and contributions outside this topic. I'm sure it was simply an error.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I do not consider the awards important enough to make for notability. Nor is JB at the very exalted level where everything he does of did as a beginner is notable--such a level really amounts to famous. Not every work of a notable person is necessarily or even usually   notable.  I very much do not like attacks on people who remove prod tags from articles--anyone has the right to ask for a community decision. But nonetheless, that someone is unfairly attacked does not necessarily make all his views correct.  This has become a conflict of personalities.   DGG (talk) 04:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A sign of being famous is recognition by just the use of your initials. MJ (Michael Jordan)for example. And now JB...--Buster7 (talk) 11:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, theoretically anyone can deprod for any reason, but it'd be nice if the ostensible reasoning provided for removing prods followed Wikipedia policies in the slightest. DreamGuy (talk) 01:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * 1) The bold at the top, for the nomination, and the bold just above here makes it look to me like DreamGuy voted twice, although I doubt that was the intention.
 * 2) I agree with UnitedStatesian that some of the sources above don't meet VERIFY.
 * 3) Schmidt, I really don't think that calling someone's argument circular is any assumption of bad faith -- only of a poor argument.
 * 4) In general, it looks like this discussion has gone from content-focused to editor-focused.
 * I'll abstain from voting entirely as I don't even know how to begin with determining the notability of this article, or whether the sources used in the article meet VERIFY (other than those linked above with a clear COI, as has already been pointed out). King of the Arverni (talk) 17:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * DGG and I are two separate people, if your first point was suggesting that those two votes were from the same person. Those are two separate votes and should be treated as such. DreamGuy (talk) 01:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * An error on my part. Redacted entirely. King of the Arverni (talk) 02:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete -- the handful of awards from minor festivals are not enough to establish notability in my view Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Appeared at film festival(s), lots of references, obvious keep. Geo Swan (talk) 02:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Sources indicate notability, and this article has a lot of those. --Joshua Issac (talk) 14:07, 28 May 2009 (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.