Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coming Soon (2006 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 DELETE I could relist this, but it doesn't seem worth it. If any admin thinks there's some merit here that I've missed, they have my permission to reverse the close. -Docg 09:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Coming Soon (2006 film)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable film, conflict of interest. Details: All in all, the article doesn't add up to a notable film. At best, it appears to be a heavily-promoted student film. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 08:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The article was created by the single-purpose account ; the film has a group by that name as its subject. The article has not received any significant edits by anyone else since its creation, suggesting that third-party interest in the film is minimal. The author has also been warned repeatedly for attempting to promote this film and this organization in other articles.
 * The film's notability is unclear. The article claims that this is "the most critically-acclaimed Czech film of the year", but this isn't borne out by the film's site, which leads us to a page that tells us that a "student jury" gave this film a "special award". A single award does not a critically-acclaimed film make. It hasn't been run in mainstream theaters - indeed, it's only being shown once every week or so.
 * Finally, the article makes several questionable claims. One is a claim that Peter Singer has seen the film and reviewed it. Singer lives in Australia, and the article notes that the film has neither been translated into English or shown outside the Czech Republic. The quote appears nowhere outside the filmmaker's own site. Another is the claim that it "has been instrumental in sparking an international zoophile-rights revolution". I am myself a zoophile, so I'd know if a revolution had been sparked. (Nope, hasn't happened.)


 * Delete and further background:
 * {| style="border:1px black solid"


 * The author is a well-known single purpose account with a long history of trying to disruptively insert links to (and promote) of this specific film in multiple Wikipedia articles. Multiple "final warnings" issued for ongoing spamming Aug 2006 - May 2007.

User's known accounts:
 * - final warning 20 Nov 2006
 * - first warning 16 Sept 2006, removed by user 11 Nov 2006, final warning 20 Nov 2006, further warning 18 feb 2007
 * - first warning 30 Aug 2006, final warning 20 Nov 2006

An example of the range of articles this editor has targetted can best be seen in the user contribs list for user:194.108.134.209, and evidence of the spam nature can be seen in posts such as this one in Human-animal marriage in which an article where the whole issue of zoophilia much less this film is tangential. Nonetheless the film is added to 3 different places in the body of the article in one session, where it's pretty much completely inappropriate/irrelevant/inapplicable to the whole article anyway.

Main article targetted: Zoophilia, but also overwrote the article for the original film Coming Soon with significant hyperbole and self-promo , added an article on his own interest group "EFA" , as well as adding his links to articles such as social inequality and zoosexuality and the law.

From a neutral viewpoint however, it is not enough that the user is a spammer and ignores policy and others. It's important to consider the status of the film itself. I've had a look around the net. It is notable that most or all promotion seems to be either in the hands of one person, or a few associates. I can find no evidence otherwise. If it were notable, or more than a tiny-minority production, there would be independent reviews of note. I can't find any. Is a minority art/campaign-promo film in a small country by a tiny fringe organization, in a language not spoken widely, with few credentials and a tendency to exaggeration, likely to be notable? If there is evidence then it needs to be cited.

In summary, I feel that COI and self-promo are (at this point) pretty much confirmed. This editor has been borderline on an extended block for repeatedly spamming this film (with which he is probably heavily involved) despite other editor's requests to desist, and his group "Equality for all" (which appears non-notable) on Wikipedia on many articles, and for describing it in terms which seem unwarranted and unsupported by reliable sources. If the film is notable, then there would be significant interest, or some 3rd party sources... but there aren't. According to Zetawoof it seems there is no evidence that the person or group or body is notable even within its own niche, nor can I find online any political or other responses to confirm anyone else has heard of it or taken it very seriously if so. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * }


 * Hello again to all Wikipedia fans. I, Equalityforall, was in a bit of rush when I posted my first response to this "Deletion Attempt" and I just wanted to add a few quick points in response to FT2's comments. I will insert them in between his paragraphs for clarity and my contributions will be indented so as not to be confused with FT2's original article. I also wanted to thank Karess and the anonymous author below for their support and arguments.


 * The issues in the preceding 2 paragraphs are correct and I've addressed them in my initial entry which you can find below.


 * I really don't think that my entries to the "Human-animal marriage" article were irrelevant and should be constituted as spam since all I added was information about the opening scene of the film which portrays the marriage between a woman and a horse. I've never seen any other film with this type of scene and I think it's quite interesting for anyone curious about Human-animal marriage. Just have a look at the Wikipedia article about Zoophilia (as well as hundreds of other articles) and you will find extensive information about where the subject in question is dealt with in the media, arts, films, radio, television, etc. It seems quite reasonable to me for a reader to want information about where and how the subject in question is portrayed.


 * I think it's quite obvious why I inserted information about COMING SOON and E.F.A. into the Zoophilia article. The reason I inserted information into the COMING SOON article is because there are many films with this title (see imdb.com for more details) including a 1982 film by John Landis, as well a 2006 short and a new 2007 feature. Yet the only film with the title COMING SOON to be featured in Wikipedia was the 1999 film and I thought it was important for readers to know that there are other films with this title. I also included some basic information about the 2006 film but I can't see how it can possibly be considered hyperbole (see the history section of the article for my exact entries and judge for yourself).


 * Once I was informed by FT2 that I can set up a new article for the 2006 film I immediately proceeded to do so and never added any more contributions to the original article about the 1999 film. Thus it is clear that my intention was never to "hijack" the article but to improve on it. I still think it would be wise for the editors to at least include the fact that there are several films with this title.


 * As mentioned before, the title "Coming Soon" is used by many films and websites, and when you do an internet search for these words you get over a million search results and it's pretty hard to find information about the 2006 film. Try doing a search for the film's director or the production company and you will find a much narrower search which will help you find many other independent sources about this film.


 * You say "you can't find any independent reviews of note" but all you would have to do is look at the film's website which contains links to rave reviews from the whole spectrum of Czech media - including many personalities and publications which have their own Wikipedia articles :-)


 * Your "small country" and "language not spoken widely" comments suggest that you are probably American and suffer from a serious Anglo-centric infliction. I hope your fellow Wikipedia fans are  open-minded enough to believe that important culture can come from other countries and languages as well. Aside from this, the film does exist in English and has been seen around the world in private screenings as well as by people who received the film directly from Devilhead Films. The last I've heard, the Englisg version of the film will be released internationally by year's end.


 * I've looked at the history of the original COMING SOON article, which is about a Hollywood film that was distributed around the world since 1999(!) and I found only a handful of contributors to the article which would suggest that the number of contributors says nothing about the fame of a film. If an article contains all the necessary information why would someone feel compelled to change it?


 * As far as Zetawoof's self-proclaimed authority on all things zoophilic please see my reaction to his comments below for indications of his less-than perfect research skills. I don't want to personally attack him, particularly since he's the courage to stand by his very rare sexual orientation, but his tone towards me has been less than friendly or objective. I already admitted and apologized for having been a bit reckless with some of my previous entries but it certainly wasn't as widespread as he or FT2 claim. And it certainly wasn't "self-promo" since E.F.A. is not my organization (as I already explained below) although I do feel that both COMING SOON and E.F.A. are worthy enough to be brought to Wikipedians attention.


 * Let the "gods" of Wikipedia decide. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Equalityforall (talk • contribs) 22:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

Dear FT2, Zetawolf, and all other Wikipedia fans.

I just wanted to take this opportunity to answer some of the arguments made by FT2 and Zetawolf - some of which are correct and some of which aren't.

To begin with those which are correct:

My account name, EQUALITYFORALL, is indeed a single-use account and the reason for this is that I simply don't feel fully safe at this point to make my identity known while supporting the cause of zoophile-rights. While there are many countries, particularly in Northern Europe, where this cause is treated a lot more openly, here in the Czech Republic it is still a dangerous taboo. I've therefor chosen to use a separate account for any additions I make about this subject.

I am also a relatively new Wikipedia contributor and haven't yet become fully familiar with the rules and protocol. But I'm trying to do so. The questionable contributions to other articles which I've made over time have not been repeated once they've been explained to me by other more experienced editors.

My own affiliation to this film is nothing more than a die-hard fan. After seeing the film I was simply elated to see the subjects of zoophilia and zoophile-rights FINALLY be breached in this country. It simply has never been talked about in the public arena prior to this film, but has since become a hot topic here - particularly in intellectual and political arenas. This means the world to me and I've been doing what I can to support this important project. If I've been a bit overzealous or unprofessional about it, I apologize, and would gladly accept the help of a more experienced editor in formulating future contributions. So far, the only way I've been able to do this has been to add the contributions and then wait for them to be edited. If I can get an e-mail from someone who would be willing to review my future contributions prior to them being posted, I would be most grateful. This film was a revelation to me and the last thing I would want to do is discredit it with my own shortcomings.

I do want to address some of claims made by FT2 and Zetawolf which are mistaken:

You point to the fact the film has "only" won a Special Award from a Student Jury and thus doesn't warrant the claim of being "the most critically-acclaimed Czech film of the year." I direct you, however, to the "Reviews and Reactions" section of the film's website (www-dot-comingsoon-dot-cz) where you will find a much longer list of reviews from Czech "personalities" and Critics - from the mainstream to the alternative and underground - ALL of which have praised the film highly. By no means are these fringe "personalities" and critics but they include some of the most highly-respected Czech personalities (Mr. Jan Svankmajer, Ester Kocickova, Dr. Jaroslav Zverina, etc.) as well as the most widely read Czech publications. (There are links on the site which confirm all of these reactions and which can be understood by anyone conversant in Czech.) There has been no other Czech film over the past few years that has enjoyed this type of praise "across-the-board."

Indeed, the film's theme and stance are highly controversial and people aren't rushing to be affiliated with it publicly until they'll be sure that they won't crucified for it. But not one single negative review has been written and new praise and support is constantly surfacing. Just last week they had a screening of the film which was followed by a discussion with the most noted Czech Sexologist and Member of the European Parliament, Dr. Jaroslav Zverina, who also praised the film and even wrote so on his own website.

As far as the quote by Dr. Peter Singer is concerned, you write that the film has not been translated into English and thus, Dr. Singer could not have seen or understood this film. This is simply incorrect. The film has been translated into English long ago and has been screened for the English-speaking public in Prague on 31.10 2006 - another fact which can confirmed with a little bit of internet surfing (I myself have attended that screening). The filmmakers decided to re-do the English voice-over and are planning to debut the final English version at an international festival this Autumn. But a rough English version has been around for a while.

They sent Dr. Singer a copy and he responded with the quote that I've posted on Wikipedia. I was a bit skeptical when I first saw the quote on the film's website since I couldn't find it on Dr. Singer's site or anywhere else on the internet. I approached one of the producer's at one of the screenings and he showed me the responsa with Dr. Singer, and I quoted it verbatim. You can easily confirm this by contacting Dr. Singer directly at psinger@princeton.edu. I have been in touch with Dr. Singer on a number of animal rights issues and can assure you that he is a humble and accessible person and will almost certainly be glad to confirm his quote.

The last point I want to make is about whether or not COMING SOON has "sparked an international zoophile-rights revolution." I, myself, am an active member of the local animal-rights movement as well as the tiny-but-growing pro-zoophilia community. Until recently, I've never encountered an organization which actively tries to fight for zoophile-rights and acceptance. There are many books, articles and websites devoted to this topic but I've never heard of (although I don't claim to be aware of everything that's out there) an internationally organized effort to bring this problem to the attention of the wider public and try to improve the fate of zoophiles around the world. Over the past year however, the first steps in creating this type of organization have surfaced (albeit primarily in the Czech Republic, but in many other countries as well) primarily due to the film COMING SOON and E.F.A. The quote is "sparked" a revolution implying that it provided the first impulses. Both FT2 and Zetawolf seem quite well-versed in the workings of the zoophile community and it surprises me that they would expect this type of activity to be openly discussed and publicized on the internet. This is certain to happen with time, but it must be obvious to anyone that the sensitivity of this problem dictates a high measure of discretion. I do agree, however, that this claim is quite hard to corroborate at this stage.

So, to sum up my thoughts, the film COMING SOON was created with minimal funds and has not had the luxury of mass advertising. But to judge a film's significance solely on the basis of how many people have heard about thus far, seems quite silly to me. I think the film should be judged by the type of people who have come out in support and praise of it, which confirms its significance to the overall debates about Animal Rights, Zoophilia, Zoophile Rights, etc. It is quite common in all areas of arts, science and philosophy that seminal works are greeted with initial reluctance and have to overcome many monetary obstacles. I believe, as do the above-mentioned critics and thinkers, that COMING SOON belongs to this category and should certainly be included in Wikipedia.

Having said this, I do agree that I've been a bit careless with my enthusiastic support of this film and would very much welcome the guidance of a more-seasoned editor before making any further contributions about this topic. If any editors would be willing to provide this help to me, please contact me at equalityforall@seznam.cz, and you can be assured that no more Wikipedia rules or protocol will be broken.

Thanking you in advance,

EQUALITYFORALL — Preceding unsigned comment added by Equalityforall (talk • contribs)


 * And you've nicely illustrated a significant part of the problem here: Few of the claims made in the article are attributable to reliable sources. More importantly, the article lacks any sources outside of either original research or self-published sources such as the film's own web site. What is there that can be said about the movie that can be borne out by sources not directly affiliated with it? Zetawoof(&zeta;) 17:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Response to Zetawook (sorry for repeating myself from the top of this articel but I'm nor sure how many people will read the entire debate so I included here too):


 * Iˇve read this little debate here and I must say that Zetawoof seems the less rational here. He's the one who seems to have some hidden agenda. If he would be really be a Zoophile as he claims, then why would he be so obviously against a film that is uniquely sympathetic to his cause. It seems to me that he is just posing as a Zoophile in order to discredit any effort to inform people of supportive arguments and material.


 * The reason I get this impression is that in spite of the article having links to other external sites (Festival Finale Plzen, E.F.A., IMDB.com, the Czech and Slovak Film Database, and the Coming Soon site which has at least a dozen links to other mainstream Czech media) Zetawoof writes that there are no outside sources. This is a simple and blatant lie.


 * Secondly, I've noticed that the user Equalityforall initially added some questionable information which was then deleted with the explanation "citation needed." He or she then revised the information and provided the sources. He changed the claim of "sparking a revolution" (which in the Czech lands of Velvet Revolutions doesn't mean tanks and bloodshed, but a new way of thinking) and revised it to "the filmmakers claim that..." and then puts a link to where the filmmakers make that claim. This seems interesting to me. I don't know how many other filmmakers claim to have "sparked a zoophile-rights revolution" and the fact that these filmmakers are ready to make that claim is quite intersting to me.


 * As far as Dr. Singer's quote is concerned, he also puts a link to the Coming Soon site. I can't see why Devilhead Films would misquote Dr. Singer when all he would have to do is write one sentence on his website to the effect that he never made that quote, and the filmmakers would be instantly discredited. Why on earth would they risk that? It's not really proof, but it seems quite convincing to me.


 * All in all it seems to me that even though Equalityforall did do a bit of silly spaming some time ago, it seems more likely that FT2 and Zetawoof have their own agenda of trying to suppress and downplay this film. I can just add that I saw this film and I agree with my compatriot (who wrote an unsigned article) below that this film is of high importance here in the Czech Republic and is certain to spark things up around the world (if it hasn't already done so) once it's released internationally.

From Prague with love, Karess

Hello Wikipedians and Animal Lovers!

Please forgive me my nor perfect English but I am Czech and it is still a little hard for me to write perfectly.

I only want to share my ideas and feelings about the film "Coming Soon" and why I think it should stay in Wikipedia. I read the arguments above and don't know enough about the rules and I don't know EQUALITYFORALL so I can't say if he is right or wrong. Maybe, if he broke the rules you can block him from making more mistakes. I want to only speak about the film and why I think its a very important work and not just a "student film" with no importance.

Here in the Czech Republic things are still very conservative and this type of film is miracle for people like me and for anyone who believes in equal rights. Just so you can know how crazy things are here I will tell you that even homosexuals still hev big problems. Last year we had new law for them to be able to have civil marriages. But it is still very taboo to say you are gay. There is no politician, famous entertainer or famous businessman who would openly say "I am gay." He would right away lose his position. It's not so bad here like in Poland but it is very difficult still. Can you imagine what it is like for zoophiles? The law here is not gainst zoophilia because people never even talk about it. If you are caught with something ike this you go to jail for cruelty to animals. Ecen if you are zoophile and love you animal and never even think to hurt it they put you in jail. We have many forums and chat-rooms on internet for discussion but these are all very secret and I never met any other zoophile personaly. This would be too dangerous. If people would know you would lose you job friend and probably go to jail if they saw you in middle of act.

We never had even public conversation about this before. The film "Coming Soon" all by itself began this conversation in all the biggest newspapers and media. Maybe this wasn't a lot of conversation but it was in places you could never imagine before. When they had discussion on Radio Vltava (the most famous station for classical music, theater, literature) I cried. Even just to hear people talking about the issue was never here before. If you ever heard about zoophilia it was always like a dirty joke. Now you hear people philosophers and politicians and famous artists talking about it because of this film.

Even the award that they own was a vey big victory for us. It wasn't a student film and it wasn't a student festival. The Festival Finale Plzen is the biggest festival for Czech films. The student jury is from University Students of Philisophical Faculty. Only three films won awards at this festival and when "Coming Soon won this award this began newspapers talking about it and it is still growing slowly.

The people before also write that "this film is only shown once a week" and this you want to prove that it is small film. But every film here gets money from government for production and advertising. Without this they cannot make and distribute the film. How can "Coming Soon" get money from government? This is impossible here. They made it with no money and a lot of help from individuals and are showing it in very interesting and respected places. If you don't just look how mant times they are playing it but whre they are playing it) in places where you have the most interesting culture and theater and readings, etc) you will see that this film is very respected here and is having strong influence on people's ideas. Most films only entertain and when a film starts making people think new ways, this is very important.

The group in the film (E.F.A.) is not officially registered group. This would be crazy here to do. But after this film we are beginning to make organization like this with people from all over the world (Japan, South Africa, Australia, United States, Europe and even Iran). I don't know if this is the first organization like this and even if there are moer please let me know!!! But this film gave us the idea and courage to create something this so I agree that film started an international zoophile-rights revolution. We are the very beginning, but everything has to have beginning. If Mr. Zetawolf doesn't know about it matbe he has to llok harder and you will find it.

These are my feelings about why this film is important. Our most famous citizen Vaclav Havel was more important before he was famous because that is when he was fighting and doing all his work. I don't think it's good to judge importance with how popular something is.

Nice regards from Prague :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.117.130.226 (talk • contribs)


 * Iˇve read this little debate here and I must say that Zetawoof seems the less rational here. He's the one who seems to have some hidden agenda. If he would be really be a Zoophile as he claims, then why would he be so obviously against a film that is uniquely sympathetic to his cause. It seems to me that he is just posing as a Zoophile in order to discredit any effort to inform people of supportive arguments and material.


 * The reason I get this impression is that in spite of the article having links to other external sites (Festival Finale Plzen, E.F.A., IMDB.com, the Czech and Slovak Film Database, and the Coming Soon site which has at least a dozen links to other mainstream Czech media) Zetawoof writes that there are no outside sources. This is a simple and blatant lie.


 * Secondly, I've noticed that the user Equalityforall initially added some questionable information which was then deleted with the explanation "citation needed." He or she then revised the information and provided the sources. He changed the claim of "sparking a revolution" (which in the Czech lands of Velvet Revolutions doesn't mean tanks and bloodshed, but a new way of thinking) and revised it to "the filmmakers claim that..." and then puts a link to where the filmmakers make that claim. This seems interesting to me. I don't know how many other filmmakers claim to have "sparked a zoophile-rights revolution" and the fact that these filmmakers are ready to make that claim is quite intersting to me.


 * As far as Dr. Singer's quote is concerned, he also puts a link to the Coming Soon site. I can't see why Devilhead Films would misquote Dr. Singer when all he would have to do is write one sentence on his website to the effect that he never made that quote, and the filmmakers would be instantly discredited. Why on earth would they risk that? It's not really proof, but it seems quite convincing to me.


 * All in all it seems to me that even though Equalityforall did do a bit of silly spaming some time ago, it seems more likely that FT2 and Zetawoof have their own agenda of trying to suppress and downplay this film. I can just add that I saw this film and I agree with my compatriot (who wrote an unsigned article) below that this film is of high importance here in the Czech Republic and is certain to spark things up around the world (if it hasn't already done so) once it's released internationally.


 * From Prague with love, Karess
 * 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.