Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blooded (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   incubate. T. Canens (talk) 23:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Blooded (film)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The reviews are pretty obscure, and I fear that we are merely being exploited to publicize this obscure hoax film which had no significant impact. Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  03:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * See also the notes at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  15:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have the same issues with this article, obscure hoax film presented with undue weight and of limited notability. Off2riorob (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 *  Delete  per WP:TOOSOON. Definitely not a hoax. See Αθηνόραμα (October 25, 2007) google translate of original Greek  However, lack of coverage currently fails WP:NF. I'm fine with userfication to its author, and if/when this one ever gets proper commentary in WP:RS, we might consider its return and caution the author about maintaining NPOV.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC) (STRUCK - See comment below)
 * The article probably isn't a hoax, since the film appears to really exist, but the film and it's marketing obviously is, so the nom is correct in referring to it as a "hoax film". That's not grounds for deletion per se, but is grounds for demanding a much higher stander of sourcing than a typical film, since we have to be especially careful about using truly independent sources, and have to assume everything said by the film's producers is part of the marketing.  --Rob (talk) 05:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 *  All films  tend to use exageration and hype in their promotions. It's what makes advertising the annoying industry it is.  Referring to the assumed good faith edits by a newcomer as "hoaxes" is perhaps more bitey than neccessary, as a new author might use such in a perhaps forgivable, and usually addressable misunderstanding of Wikipedia's requirements for a neutral point of view.   I note that  even just today , March 11, 2011, JoBlo reported the film "will have its world premiere at the Bradford International Film Festival on Match 18. Revolver Entertainment will then release the film in select theaters and on-demand services on April 1 before it hits DVD on April 4."  As new articles about the film are even now being released, we might soon find it having enough coverage in RS to meet NF.  Not yet, no... but perhaps soon.  And if enough more becomes available, a cleanup for style and a return to mainspace is a viable consideration.  Userfication to author is a non-bitey, no harm and no foul solution.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. Most fictional films make very clear that they're fiction, and some will even have an advisory stating they are fictional, just to avoid being sued by real people/companies that resemble the subjects.  The problem is that we have a situation where the most important fact about the film (the fact it's a hoax) is not really reported on properly.  I consider userifying unacceptable.  We're basically linking people (by naming them) to a deception (invoking BLP).  Also, this confuses reality with fiction.  For example, the current article actually makes it seem like "Real Animal League" is actually real.  It gives to citations about their "reception" to the film.  We have a situation where the producers are intentionally planting false information on the web.  We have to extra cautious about anything we pick up and repeat.  This necessitates a complete deletion.  If the film becomes well known, and well covered, then somebody can make a brand new article, with new content.  There is nothing of value in the current article.  It's existence discredits Wikipedia.    --Rob (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * HUH?. You sent a link that did not prove your assertion, as the version you linked specifically states "... the film uses the fictional actions of an imaginary animal rights organization called The Real Animal League..." So pardon me, but it's difficult to read that sentence as an assertion that the "organization" is at all real.  And so you might re-read the article again, as it has continued to evolve since your statement and all comments from or links to this fictional organization's non-reliable SPS website have been removed.  And We're not naming even one worthy organization, nor are we saying anything derogatory about these organizations (though the film itself might, and that's on them).  Since nomination, the article's POV has been neutralized as an addressable issue... and no matter the film topic, or how it is being marketed, as long as Wikipedia maintains a balanced neutrality, and follows the instructions of policy, a topic that receives enough coverage to meet WP:NF can stay, no matter the topic.  And please keep in mind that I did not vote a "keep".  If the film's controversial content is itself reported in such sources as The Independent which writes "...it all has the whiff of a clever publicity stunt" then our own linking to coverage in that article in a reliable source is exactly as required by POLICY.  Good editing mandates that we provide our readers with balance and neutrality in such sourced information so as to not mislead. And you might not like it, but userfication for improvement of problematic articles IS an accepted practice that improves the project.  But in considering the controversial nature of the film, and that it will premiere in less than a week, I now think incubation is the better choice so it can be worked on, kept neutral, and recive better sourcing from editors who do not have the COI of the author.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I linked to the then-current version, which indicated it was fictional in parts, but under "Reaction" treated the fictional organization as real. After I made the comment above, I removed the misleading sentence.  The article superficially looks better now that the intentional distortions are removed, and is more truthful.  However,  we now say things that we know are true, but can't actually verify.  We know "The Real Animal League" is an imaginary organization, and we say that in the article.  However, we don't actually have a reliable source which explicitly states its confirmed that to be the case.  So, we're in a bind, honesty demands we say the organization is imaginary, but it's a violation of policy to say so, without verification.  What's the solution?  complete deletion.  --Rob (talk) 09:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Remember, inclusion in Wikipedia is not about truth... it's about verifiability (see WP:V). If the mentioned imaginary and controversial organization cannot be verified in reliable sources, we do not write of it as it existed and we lend it no further credence than does our reliable sources.  That this unsourcable (fictional/imaginary) organization was likely created as a plot deveice to help promote a film is a reason for us to be alert, but not a reason to delete an article otherwise being sourcable.  The solution is not deletion... the solution is editing  We'll know more in less than two weeks when the film has its premiere and its "message" stirs further controversy.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 15:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If we can't say anything verifiable about the most important truth of a topic, that suggests a lack of notability. When dealing with truly notable topics, it's always possible to cover all the major points, using reliable sources.  Editing is the solution, only if there are sufficient available sources.  However, there isn't enough, and there may never be.  This may remain a nothing movie.  Without a crystal ball we can't tell. Rob (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, please remember, inclusion in Wikipedia is not about truth... it's about verifiability. And to meet WP:NF, "truth" of a film's topic not a requirement... but it receiving critical commentary that addresses the film directly is... and so far, we do have reliable sources reporting on the film and we know when and where it will premiere.  Your good faith suppostion that a controversial film on a controversial subject will not receive additional overage is just as crystal as supposing it will... though in considering the subject matter and how it is being promoted, my own good faith assumption is that it will get more coverage, and not less.  This is why WP:INCUBATION was created as alternative to outright deletion.  And yet again, please note that I am not saying the current article should stay in mainspace.  What I am saying, being an editor in good standing with a proven track record for article creation and a strong history of improving articles for the project, is that I have a good faith belief that it can be improved within a reasonable time.  WP:Incubation is a proper course of action in this case.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Complete lack of substantial sources, and it's also to soon. --Rob (talk) 05:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - and userfy as per user Schmidts comments detailed comments, if the user wants userfication. - It is WP:TOSOON, it will be much easier to assess notability after release. Off2riorob (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly so.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * clarify - it is not that the article is a hoax (i.e., the film does exist), but rather that the film itself is a hoax, a gigantic lie in the Blair Witch viral marketing tradition. The creator of the film is obviously an employee of the company that made the film, and has done no edits which do not aim at publicizing the films and its makers; it's impossible to AGF as far as WP:COI is concerned on this one. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  21:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This was my experience as well, logo, advertising poster and company logo and soundtrack sample all uploaded at the same time by the article creator have since been deleted as copyright violations, no evidence of permission but the uploader claimed to own them all. Off2riorob (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As I wrote to Orange Mike when he brought his concerns to my talk page, pretty much no matter who writes an article or their reasons for doing so or their inclusion of hype in their article, if the film, no matter its subject matter, is released when the sources state it will be and subsequently recieves critical commentary, it 'might' merit inclusion under WP:NF. If the film is not released and does not receive independent critical commentary, the article will not be back.  The fictional film's subject matter or how it is presented is not the issue at hand, as the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks for the reminder. Off2riorob (talk) 23:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Film uses totally misleading viral campaign about events that never happened. There Youtube video page has under 1000 views. Not notable even as a viral campaign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.159.217 (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * To animal rights IP 81.102.159.217, the fictional film's subject matter or how the film presents its fictional subject matter is not the issue at hand, as the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. It will either eventually meet WP:NF and then can be edited and sourced to our standards, or it will not meet NF and will not return.  It's really just that simple.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Incubate now per WP:ATD as I have myself been addressing the article's style and tone and do not have the conflict of interest as might the article's author. I have a good faith belief, specially as the film is nearing its release date and is of a controversial enough nature, that it will likely get proper coverage after release.  What was first sent to AFD is NOW more suitable for placement in the incubator for a few weeks.  If it does not get the required coverage, it will not be back.  A win-win for the project.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * comment - I support this option presented by Michael and his improvements to the article and the docu-films release date in three weeks have made incubation a viable option. Off2riorob (talk) 09:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources already present in the article seem adequate and we can expect more soon as reviews typically appear during the week of general release. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The film has yet to be given it's premiere so reviews would be scant at this stage and many existing reviews may be speculatory or based only on the premise of the film or the trailer. I personally know someone who has been invited to the première screening in order to review it. Jalendarous (talk) 10:36, 15 March 2011 — Jalendarous (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment Blair Witch is one analogy that can illuminate the deliberate obfuscation of the line between documentary and fiction that the producers of this film engaged in, but a better one is The Amityville Horror: A True Story Anarchangel (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete and userfy. It appears that my words were truer than I knew: the obfuscation presented by the creators of Blair Witch as publicity is now referred to on WP as a "ground-breaking campaign", which is true neither in the sense of it being legitimate to lie about whether film events are real, nor that they were the first to do so, as Amityville had done it already. Ground-breaking in that many people decided that they did not care anymore, perhaps? I still do.
 * The sources in the article are of a very low standard, amounting to nothing more than blogs and fansites. If someone can find even one citation in Google News, I might revise my opinion.
 * The article has been much improved from the original monstrous amalgamation of a PEACOCK on a SOAPBOX, but there seems to be a tendency to hold onto uncited or even uncitable claims about its subject. The film is said to "address the hunting debate in the UK", and it "has provoked reactions from parties on both side of the hunting debate in the UK", both claims, naturally, uncited. Even trivial facts that most certainly should become citable, should the film become notable, are cited by stretches of the imagination, for example the fact that the Greek source was written in 2007 and the interviewee said, "I just finished <>" are the only rationales for citing that "Principle filming was completed by October 2007." Who knows what part of the filming process the interviewees work represented? I have seen a lot of claims of SYNTH in my time here, but this is actually the first time I have seen the real thing.
 * MQSchmidt's characterization of CRYSTAL as CRYSTAL is tortuous and ignores TOOSOON. Rob/Thivierr is correct to point out that there is considerable doubt about the future of sourcing for this article, especially given the quality of the sources so far. Anarchangel (talk) 01:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the article is not currently ready for mainspace, and it is certainly not I who said anything about current sources being perfect, and indeed, it was I who spent time neutralizing the current version to address the gross misrepresentations and mis-leading use of false sources originally included by its author... making certain to include a relable source specifically stating the film's promotion "has the whiff of a clever publicity stunt". Yes, it is WP:TOOSOON, but as we DO have confirmation in reliable sources that the film will premiere at the Bradford International Film Festival on March 18, and have limited release in select theaters and on-demand services on April 1, and DVD release on April 4,  I think your characterization of my use of crytsal is what is "tortuous", specially as I specifically suggested WP:INCUBATION because it is TOOSOON... as a guideline encouraged reasonable alternative while we await anticipated sources, the "future" of this article as rests in limbo will be deternined when it is (or is not) screened and reviewed.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 10:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * And to remind those who do not know or misunderstand what the incubator is for: "The article incubator is a place for holding articles that do not meet Wikipedia's content criteria (WP:NOT, WP:N, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, and WP:V), but a rationale has been put forward that the article meets the incubation criteria, which means there is an intention that the article can and will be improved. "


 * Incubation criteria:


 * 1) The article does not meet the excluded criteria (does not now meet exclusion criteria)
 * 2) The article has been either previously deleted or has been through a deletion process and a decision reached that it does not meet inclusion/content criteria (discussion ongoing)
 * 3) A rationale has been put forward by at least one person that the article could meet inclusion/content criteria if given time (more than one editor has stated this rationale); for example:
 * Sufficient reliable sources which deal with the subject in depth may be found, though they may not be readily available online at the moment (expected within a few days)
 * The article may be rewritten to remove any suggestion of original research or biased point of view (already done)
 * The article may be developed sufficiently to clearly establish notability (considering the controversy of the film's topic, is emminently do-able)
 * 1) A willingness has been established by at least one person to work on the article; (me, for one) or
 * 2) a convincing reason has been put forward why the article would benefit from being put on hold now, to be worked on in the future (such as a belief that the subject is important, but as the subject is not current or popular in the developed world, reliable sources are not easy to come by, though they could be found eventually) (the "convincing reason" is that the article is premature and my reasonable argument is that its debut will likley bring sources and critical commentary in reliable sources)
 * Usefication to its author is problematic, so why be opposed to it being incubated???  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 10:13, 16 March 2011 (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.