Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drifts


 * 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. The consensus is to delete. Those objecting themselves provide the evidence for why this article does not meet our policies. That they do not like those policies does not change their existence. Once this film gains press (if it ever does), then an article can be created. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Drifts

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable film, no secondary coverage BOVINEBOY 2008 22:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * NOTABILITY?


 * How can upcoming films satisfy criteria of notability? It is ABSURD and a NONESENSE insisting with such an argument to delete an article about a non released film, since it has not yet been commented. There are HUNDRED of such articles published at the Wikipedia. Stubbornness? If not, how can one argue it is no notable film? Is a personal opinion enough reason to delete an article? How can this be accepted?
 * User talk:Tertulius 01:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the film has not yet received any true coverage in reliable sources. All films must have this coverage, especially unreleased films. The notability guidelines for upcoming films are actually far more strict, as they have to show a lot more coverage. The existence of other articles doesn't mean anything when it comes to keeping this article. (See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.) All that the existence of another article on Wikipedia might mean is that the other article hasn't been nominated for deletion yet. We can't keep things that don't pass notability guidelines in the here and now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   03:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Ricardo Costa (filmmaker). Now all problems with notability aside, this could probably redirect to the director's page for right now. There just isn't enough notability to warrant this having its own article right now. The coverage just isn't there. It might be when it releases, but so far the coverage just isn't there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   03:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Almost all upcoming films with articles at Wikipedia have not yet «received any true coverage in reliable sources». Your argument illustrates the main CONTRADITION. If this “rule” is to be respected, most of those articles must be deleted. If not, how can one justify such argument and with which ethics?

Only Major film studios in film distribution will be able to give some coverage to their upcoming films. That is why those defending this “rule” will undoubtedly, volunterly or voluntarily, be working for them. Note that the biggest number of articles in Wiki about upcoming films are Majors' ones.

This problem is too serious to be underestimated. If the rule is kept, Wikipedia will turn into an excellent tool for commercial film propaganda and, on the other hand, a quite good thing to crush independent producers. A scandal!

User talk:Tertulius 15:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

---

NOTE:

The following discussion has been moved from the Talk Page to the Project Page by suggestion of user Tokyogirl79 on 16 July 2013 (UTC). User talk:Ulissipus 23:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

POINT 1

There are many articles of upcoming films published at Wikipedia that have not been proposed to deletion. Why do you insist in deleting Drifts article (and probably similar ones) and seem unable to explain the contradiction? This is unacceptable.

See Wikipedia articles about upcoming and unreleased films like Labor Day (film), The Secret Life of Walter Mitty (2013 film) The Fantastic Four (film), The Good Dinosaur, Finding Dory.

You will find MANY MORE here: 2013 in film, 2014 in film

or here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Upcoming_films.

''' How do you explain such exceptions? '''.

Most of these films will be distributed (so it seems) by the Hollywood system. Their Wikipedia articles will certainly be kept, but articles about really independent films, produced outside the system, MUST BE ELLIMINATED, as you implicitly argue. Why? Are you promoting the system and fighting against independent producers? '''Are you defending powerful commercial interests against cultural ones and against freedom of expression? Whom are you serving?'''

POINT 2

WP:NFF (Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films).

Drifts, like other films having published articles, is no future film, it is a completed film, in fact not yet commercially distributed. Only commercially distributed films are allowed to have Wiki articles?. If so, this is an aberration. Experimental films, Avant-garde films, Art films, that in many cases never had commercial distribution do not deserve Wiki articles? Must articles about seminal films like Chronique d'un été, for instance, be eradicated from Wikipedia because they have no references of notability?

WP:NFF obsolete, intricate and contradictory "rules" need a deep and radical revision. Instead of fighting arbitrarily for articles deletion you should (this is an ethical exigency) do your best to correct such errors, if in fact you respect the basic principles of Wikipedia and wish to collaborate with good intentioned editors.

POINT 3

Hasty or authoritarian proposals to deletion are negative, especially in the case of articles translated in several languages and kept with no objections for months. Moreover, being linked to many other articles and consolidating relevant information, such actions should be avoided with no previous careful analyses.

POINT 4

Notability

How can upcoming films satisfy criteria of notability? It is ABSURD and a NONESENSE insisting with such an argument to delete an article about a non released film, since it has not yet been commented. There are HUNDRED of such articles published at the Wikipedia. Stubbornness? If not, how can one argue it is no notable film?

User talk:Tertulius 02:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Here are some explanations:
 * Some of those films have a lot of coverage in reliable sources to merit it being kept. Others don't and should probably be deleted or redirected to an appropriate target. The existence of another article means nothing as far as Wikipedia's notability and AfD standards go. (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)
 * If you want to propose new standards for film notability guidelines, feel free to propose them at Wikipedia talk:Notability (films). I'll be quite honest when I say that nobody is going to change the rules to where you will be able to keep an article without any reliable sources that establish notability.
 * The existence of this page on other language Wikipedia sites doesn't mean anything. Every site has their own rules and standards for notability, so something that might pass on another Wikipedia won't pass here and vice-versa. It might also mean that the page on the other site hasn't been deleted yet. We've had people try to argue this, only for the page to get deleted on the other site for much of the same reasons you see here. As far as this page having existed for any period of time, that doesn't mean anything. It just means that nobody noticed it before this point. As far as it being linked to other pages, that doesn't matter either. The only thing that will save this article is coverage in reliable sources about the film.
 * It's difficult for any non-mainstream, big blockbuster film to gain notability. I'll give you that. However at the same time we can't relax those standards just because it might seem unfair. It's not up to Wikipedia to make up the difference in media coverage for anything. We can't give something an article because the media doesn't cover Derivas while it will fall all over itself to mention other films or topics that seem inconsequential to you or to someone else. That's not how Wikipedia works.
 * I hope this explains some of the arguments you've brought up. On a side note, you should really post arguments in the main section for the AfD or on the talk page for Derivas. This page is normally left blank. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   03:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 *  Redirect  to Ricardo Costa (filmmaker). No need to hash out the arguments again as Tokyogirl79 has already provided the reasoning in fine detail. -- Whpq (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If a reader looks for "drifts" then I would have thought that it's much more likely that one of the topics listed at the disambiguation page for drift is being looked for than this film, so I wouldn't support that redirect. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point. I'm changing my !vote to what Phil Bridger said -- Whpq (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Drift as obviously non-notable and provide a link to Ricardo Costa (filmmaker) from that disambiguation page. In fact I'll put the requisite link into the disambiguation page now as it will be udeful whatever the outcome of this discussion. I can only add that anyone who defines Wikipedia's verifiablity and notability requirements as "a scandal", and spouts all the other hyperbole above, must lead a very sheltered life. There are plenty of scandalous things going on in this world, but this is not one of them. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * REDIRECT?


 * Drift redirections. Drifts is so redirected: «Drifts, a film under production directed by Ricardo Costa (filmmaker)». This is a false statement. Drifts is not «a film under production». It is a produced film. It is one among many upcoming films, the articles of which are kept untouched at Wikipedia.


 * The film title is Drifts and not Drift. Although having the same semantic root, these words are different and have not the same meaning. They mean quite different things.


 * Please, do not redirect articles about films to articles about directors. A film is not a director. Doing so, one persists in error. Don’t do that!


 * THE SCANDAL


 * The scandal consists in disguising the problem in focus and hiding the CONTRADITION I have been talking about with no comment. «There are plenty of scandalous things going on in this world» in fact, and this is one of them.


 * The scandal consists in allowing the existence of articles about films produced or distributed by US film majors with no comment and no objection. Another good example: Seventh Son (film), a Warner Bros. film, is an upcoming film the notability of which is not contested, although its article and sources are not different from those of Drifts in any respect. Article citation: «Seventh Son has switched release dates multiple times. It was originally scheduled for release February 22nd 2013, but moved back to October 18th 2013, to complete post production. It again moved from October 18th 2013, to January 17th 2014, due to the company parting ways».


 * Deleting Drifts article or similar ones and uttering no single word about things like those, that is the scandal!


 * User talk:Tertulius 23:17, 17July 2013 (UTC)




 * REDIRECT to Ricardo Costa (filmmaker), where this unreleased film can be spoken of in context to its filmmaker so as to best serve the project. We have a film which began shooting in 2009 and was completed in 2011 but has not yet screened publically. Lacking suitable coverage, this fails WP:NFF. And until independent reliable sources are brought to support the article, even if only Portugese language, and author's wax complaints aside, we have a failure of WP:NFF. We can allow recreation/undeletion once notability (not existance) is shown. And to User:Tertulius... finished or not, released or not... what can allow any film topic to merit an article is coverage in independent reliable sources.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, this is answering like robots, reacting like machines: applying “rules” instead of reason. Never facing the problem. Hiding it once more to make invulnerable a hidden intention. Telling one to search for sources where they do not exist, when silencing other unsourced articles. If I am wrong, please help me understand why, with reasonable arguments instead of bringing up to “talk” more and more robots. New war strategies penetrating Wikipedia? Am I dreaming?
 * User talk:Tertulius 04:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If sources do not exist then there is nothing on which to base an article. That statement is based purely on reason, a word that you should not be using because you obviously have no understanding of the concept, not rules. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The article is based on several credit worthy sources like all those listed under upcoming films but not, like all the others, on those consequent of commercial screenings after distribution. None of those films has been distributed. You argue with a paradox to sustain a false reason. User talk:Tertulius 14:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, you're the one who said above that sources don't exist, so I took that at face value. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Of course, Phil! I said what I have been saying: none of those articles can have sources from critics, scholars or from anybody else as the films have not yet been seen. The same for films which have never been premiered, many of which have articles listed at the Wikipedia as unreleased films (Category:Unreleased films). They all have credible sources and have not been deleted or contested. Such articles must be kept, as they may contain valuable information or historical significance.
 * User talk:Tertulius 16:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Drifts sources and relevance
 * The article has been improved with new links and references on the latest days. Among them, there are two new references by journalists and scholars (article and news), one associating the film to the sequel trilogy to which it belongs and of which it is an integrating part and the other highlighting its importance as its central theme is Time.
 * It seems that obvious facts have been in the meantime underestimated: playing their own characters in film, there are notable university researchers referring subjects IN the film and ABOUT the film. Drifts is a metafilm: a film about its own making. Much of what is said inside the film is implicitly a comment on the film. Besides, it is a biographic docufiction. This blend of genres will not be found in any other film. Isn’t that enough reason for Drifts notability? Can’t that be seen?
 * User talk:Ulissipus 19:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * User talk:Ulissipus 19:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The sources that have been added to the article are this one apparently published by the director of this film and this one hosted at blogspot.com and so a self-published blog. Neither comes close to being an independent reliable source as required for notability. And Ulissipus's second paragraph is utterly irrelevant to notability. I could go out this evening and shoot a film with those characteristics on my mobile phone, but it wouldn't be notable unless it received coverage in independent reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I note additionally that the first of the two sources referred to above doesn't even mention Drifts. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry Phil,
 * It seems you are going too far. Your mobile phone argument is ridiculous. But try, and show us your film…
 * User talk:Ulissipus 20:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.37.62.178 (talk)
 * Paragraph 2 of Ulissipus's comment at 19:15, 21 July 2013 is the ridiculous argument, i.e. that the film is notable because of claims by its director about its structure and genre rather than by virtue of being noted by independent reliable sources. Any film maker can claim that, including me, but it counts for nothing. And please decide whether you are Tertulius or Ulissipus and stick to that name. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your enlightening contribution.
 * User talk:Ulissipus 21:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the Drift disambig per Phil Bridger, unless the name of this article is changed to Drifts (film) or something of that nature. I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 18:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Drifts (Portuguese film) page has just been published. Please redirect Drifts page to this one.
 * Thanks,
 * User talk:Tertulius 00:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * RESULT: big trouble!
 * User talk:Tertulius 02:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not appropriate to create the article again under a different title. -- Whpq (talk) 02:49, 24 July 2013 (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.