Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esther's Diary (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   keep per WP:HEY and per all delete !voters switching to "keep". (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Esther's Diary (film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Subject is a 2010 film. No substantial coverage. Not a bad article but sadly the refs are mainly IMDb and other unreliable. Fails WP:NFILM. Christopher Connor (talk) 06:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. As noted in the article, the film was originally released under the title of Forgiveness a couple of years prior. The film was directed by Mariusz Kotowski, the screenplay written by Allan Knee, and the main actors were Juli Erickson and Shelley Calene-Black, all of whom are recognized in Wiki as notable people.  Here is an article about the film under the title Forgiveness as listed in the Polish Film Festival of LA:, and an entry showing a screening at the West Hollywood International Film Festival of 2008: .  Maybe more information on its former title Forgiveness should be included in the article. Keyboard Warrior Killer (talk) 16:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keyboard warrior killer (talk • contribs)




 * Keep and fix the shortcomings to reach Wikipedia standards. To me, notability has been met. My76Strat (talk) 03:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I just added a bunch of material to the article as requested; please check to see how it looks. Keyboard warrior killer (talk) 22:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Solid Keep per improvements that address all the nominator's concerns. Kudos to User:Keyboard warrior killer.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm quite baffled here. With regards to WP:NFILM, there are no full-length reviews by nationally known critics. There's one by the The Jewish Journal (Boston North) but I wouldn't say that is regarded as "nationally known". All of the awards won are very minor so would not count towards criteria 3. Neither does it satisfy any other criteria. Importantly, the articles Mariusz Kotowski and Juli Erickson were themselves created by User:Keyboard warrior killer and whom he claims "are recognized in Wiki as notable people". Creating an article and then pretending that that they "are recognized in Wiki as notable people" is an attempt to deceive others and is very very sneaky. So although I see three keep votes, I don't see particularly strong arguments for them. Christopher Connor (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * *Delete. Too many problems with the references.  "Esther's Diary: Behind the Scenes" is cited twice but is a youtube interview done by Bright Shining City Productions, the film's production company.  IMdB is cited four separate times but it is not always reliable/verifiable.  The "Esther's Diary end credits" are  cited 3 times.  Also there is an issue that this 2010 release is essentially a re-editing of a previous movie "Forgiveness"(2008), I don't think an article about the 2010 release is noteworthy enough to have its own article, perhaps the 2008 release and the 2010 re-edit can be combined.  If the article can be brought up to Wikipedia standards, then the article-writer can always re-submit. Shearonink (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Vote struck, see below Shearonink (talk) 14:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no article for the film "Forgiveness" here. So there is nothing to combine or from another point of view, this is the combination of this. So this is no reason to claim here deletion. How about more accuracy when trying to seperate good articles and perhaps bad articles? --Ausgangskontrolle (talk) 05:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The point being made in my 'Delete' post is that in my opinion the 2010 release does not have enough notability on its own merit to warrant its own article. *If* press, reviews, awards were combined for both the 2008 release and the 2010 release then the combined information might be enough to warrant the article being kept.  Besides, an article being deleted once does not mean that it cannot be re-submitted *ever*, it just means that the information needs to be re-worked/re-edited to be brought up to Wikipedia article standards before possible re-submission.Shearonink (talk) 17:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. As per NFILM, one of the criteria is "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." Allan Knee in particular is no small potatoes; if you've ever seen the movie Finding Neverland, Allan Knee is the writer of the original play that movie was based on. I did indeed create the Juli Erickson and Mariusz Kotowski articles, but I did not create the articles on Allan Knee and Shelley Calene-Black. There is a completely different Wikipedia user that is covering Anime in Wikipedia and they have done updates on both the Juli Erickson article and the Shelley Calene-Black article because they are both Anime voiceover actresses. In the case of Shelley Calene-Black in particular, the user took the time to update her filmography, making separate lists for Calene-Black's Anime roles and live-action roles, the latter of which includes Esther's Diary. ¶As per the deception claims, there are two other notable people in the movie who I am not claiming as notable people because as, per the definition above, their involvement is minor.  One is Cyndi Williams, another Anime voiceover actress who had a very small role voiceover role in the movie, and the other is photographer Michael Kenna, whose concentration camp photography is used in the opening credits.  I consider both of those inclusions "minor" according to the definition above, and therefore did not include them in my list of notable people.  ¶One of things I was asked to do was find places on the web where the movie had screened, and I did that. As Forgiveness, the film has its own page in the Polish Film Festival of Los Angeles' Film Gallery, and I listed that (all four of my notable people are listed in the credits on that page).  I also added links to its award and screening at the Bayou City Inspirational Film Festival, and its screening at West Hollywood International Film Festival in Los Angeles (which is also a full page).  ¶As for the Jewish Journal, the paper is a print publication and, according to the publication's official site, has a circulation of 150,000 (according to Wiki it has a circulation of 60,000 and a readership of 180,000), so in my mind it does not count as a minor source. ¶Shearonink suggested that this article be a combined story on both Forgiveness and Esther's Diary, which I think is a good idea.  Actually, if you read my recent edits, that is exactly what I did.  I haven't done it yet, but I was also planning to make a redirect link to the Esther's Dairy article from the Wikipedia article Forgiveness (film), which is about a completely different film (a 2004 South African film).  From all the Wiki articles I've read, when you have two things that are really similar, you combine them into one article, and I want to respect that tradition.  I could resubmit the article under the name "Forgiveness (2008 film)", but since the version that is circulating now is Esther's Diary, it seems to me that it would be less confusing to put it under the more recent title. Keyboard warrior killer (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * * Keep keep, remove all unverifiable stuff; trim the plot; remove unref'd awards in particular, and tidy-up. Add RS if possible. But appears notable. And merge stuff in, as appropriate, as described above.  Chzz  ► 02:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Struck. Erm, wait a minute. I need to check these sources a bit more.  Chzz  ► 02:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * * Delete vote struck; see discussions below 11:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Second thoughts; re-checking this, I realise that there is no significant coverage in RS - that journal thingy isn't about this film at all; in fact, much of the content seems to be a desparate attempt to show inherited notability. There is no significant coverage of THIS movie.  Chzz  ►  02:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Chzz, where do you see desperation? If "desperation" is in the details, then I could cut it down, that's not a problem.  Look at the Jewish Journal article again; it's a full-on review of the movie under the original title of Forgiveness.  I could see the point in some of these responses if Esther's Diary had no coverage whatsoever, but Forgiveness and Esther's Diary are two different versions of the same movie, and together there is enough information.  I feel very strongly that I've provided enough of a "paper trail" above to show that there are notable people playing major roles in the movie and that it has been screened in festivals and received awards,and that therefore it fits the notability guidelines.   Keyboard warrior killer (talk) 03:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Reply Notability is not inherited, and it strikes me that much current content is only tangentially related to the topic. For example, "polanegri.com" is clearly not an independent source, but is used to reference the facts regarding other works by Sydney Barrosse and Jamie Goodwin. It is akin to writing an article about "Chzz", and stating that "Chzz once met David Beckham,&lt;ref> Chzz's Website &lt;/ref> who played in over 100 Champions League matches.&lt;ref> Legit ref re DB &lt;/ref>.


 * If I could see sufficient notability of the subject in RS, that'd be fine; if the only coverage is about the movie Forgiveness, and there is further coverage of that, then we should have an article on that subject, with a mention of its other name (sourced, of course). If it is notable under the name "Esther's Diary", then I have yet to see evidence of that notability.  Chzz  ► 16:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Just denying notability is not enough. What about the awards, what about the original and the reedit film, what about the notable actors and director? The actual version shows better that this deletion request is nonsense. I am sad about some user, their behaviour and the workload they produce. -- Ausgangskontrolle (talk) 10:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I reckon your keep vote is more nonsense than anything in my nomination. I have already gone through WP:NFILM and addressed all the issues you have raised. You on the other hand have no arguments based on policies, guidelines, or common sense. I think Chzz's response sums this up: upon stumbling across this article and seeing how nicely done it is, how large it is, how many refs it has, how many awards it has won, how many blue links to other articles there are - they automatically assume it must be notable. But upon closer examination, they realise this is not the case. Christopher Connor (talk) 16:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict)


 * Reply (to Ausgangskontrolle) We need to assert notability; that is the requirement - not to refute alleged notability. Notability is not inherited - the fame of the actors and director has no bearing on this matter.  Chzz  ► 16:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Reply (to Christopher Conner and Chzzz) I really do appreciate the kind words on the article, Christopher, thank you. But I am starting to wonder if these arguments are going into "That's my story and I'm sticking to it" territory as I've gone to a LOT of work to establish notability, and my talking points are being ignored and/or nitpicked for exceptions regardless of how many dots I connect. (P.S. the deflection tactic on Ausgangskontrolle is not exactly endearing.) Keyboard warrior killer (talk) 23:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Reply I don't nitpick, honestly; I keep it very simple: WP:VRS - that is all I ask, of any subject. If you could show me e.g. 3 newspaper articles that were substantially about the movie, I'd be happy to vote to keep it - and perhaps such coverage can be obtained, in time - but maybe not right now.  Chzz  ► 03:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. I would like to thank Shearonink and MichaelQSchmidt for helping me with revamping the article to better suit Wiki standards. I really appreciate it and I'll be paying attention and learning from your edits. Keyboard warrior killer (talk) 22:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment what we have here is a special circumstance where we must consider the cumulative coverage and awards of one film as released under two different titles... with the Forgiveness (2007 film) being the original release title and Ether's Diary being the later "director's cut" of the same film. I suggest that we do a move and redirect of the current title of Esther's Diary to Forgiveness (2007 film), where (and I am quite willing to do the editing) we can have the director's cut with its re-naming and re-release included in a "History" or "Release" section. And yes, Kwk points suggests above that we might keep in with its new title... but as it was under the original title that it was first released, first reviewed, and first seen as award-winning, a searchable redirect of the current name to the former, will then bring readers to an encyclopedic article where the film and its re-release can be dealt with in one place.  And if after all this discussion, a closer decides to delete, I ask that the article be userfied to me so that I may do the re-write and create an new article for Forgiveness (2007 film) with information on the later re-cut and re-release as Esther's Diary included contextually as I have outlined above.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q.


 * I appreciate the circumstances. I can see how it might be possible to build an article on the alternate two names of the one film. Given the current article content, etc, I believe that deletion is a fair outcome, and in that event, that userfication would allow all the time in the world for the development of an appropriate, referenced, encyclopaedic article in userspace; I would also recommend getting it checked over before making it live again. This seems the best way forwards, to me.  Chzz  ► 03:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If the close result is a keep, with a closer's suggestion of moving to the earlier name with editing to clarify its focus and history, I would be glad to assist in such improvements. As improvements are possible, a flat deletion based upon it not yet being moved and edited, might be seen as perhaps not the best outcome, as we do have other options. WP:Incubation is another possibility that has not been discussed... specially as rather than the article being off mainspace in only one userspace, it could be off mainspace but in a location where others may step in and assist... others who had never even heard of the topic... and as being in a community workspace, it would not be returned to mainspace until it has reviewed. But again, I think a "keep and fix" is a suitable outcome per its potential for improvement and Wikiepdia not demanding immediate perfection of articles that can be addressed through regular editing.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You believe deletion is a fair outcome? It looks like this is your only intention. Instead of adding the things you miss, you expect that someone starts from the beginning after your proposed deletion? Looks like you have no problem to disturb authors and delete their work so that some day another author begin from scratch. Your arguments are counterproductively to a relevant article about a film and its reedit. I gave arguments, just denying them is not correct. Notable actors and director makes this film notable. What else than films like this one makes these people notable? The inconsistency in your argumentation is obviously. --Ausgangskontrolle (talk) 15:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please, WP:AGF, as User:Chzz is a decent editor, and just zeroing in on the article's current weaknesses. I see by his comment that he acknowledges that a properly encyclopedic article can be created from the information available, but that he feels it better to start from scratch than correct the one we have. My own thought is that if it can be fixed through regular editing, why then why must we start from scratch?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 17:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with the "keep, fix, and move to different location" thing. In lieu of the situation and concerns, I would prefer it be moved to a Forgiveness (2008 film) article and Esther's Diary be a redirect. With that in mind, let me see if I can scrounge around and find a .jpg of the original poster so there can be an original Forgiveness poster and an Esther's Diary poster in the article (maybe I could email the production company and see if they would be willing to send one?)  I think it's a good article with these new edits and I personally don't think it's so bad that it needs to be incubated (of course I'm the original author, so consider that bias). Keyboard warrior killer (talk) 23:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I am sticking with my keep suggestion. It was my initial reaction when I voted having only skimmed the surface, and I maintain my conviction having looked in further detail. I think the suggestions to perhaps move to a new title, strengthened by the combined references, is certainly viable. I do however assert that this is akin to a keep vote which is to say correct through normal editing. Moving an article to a different title is a normal editing procedure. The articles creator has demonstrated amicability during this process, and there is no reason to believe they would have been obstinate to constructive criticism brought forth on either the user or the article talk page. Those factors along with the articles creation date suggest AfD is perhaps the least preferred venue for making these kinds of corrections. If anything I suggest perhaps 'speedy keep' so as to allow this re titled article to emerge as the next step in its own manifestation.  My 76  Strat  00:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I have just contributed a BOLD re-write of the article to address concerns brought up on this page and in anticipation of a move to its original title. I turned what first came to AFD into THIS.  While editors are welcome to revert, I believe the new version is leaner, better sourced, far less spammy, and seems now to be decently encyclopedic.  I suggest then that if kept, the closer move the rewritten article to Forgiveness (2008 film) and set Esther's Diary (film) as a redirect... it being a likely search term. Best to all.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, rename as above - that seems fine to me; sorry I couldn't really vote "keep" previously, but we were talking about a different article, so it's tricky. Admin, please note, upon closing this the article needs moving (with a redir left behind).  Chzz  ► 11:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Schmidt's re-edited version - Article as it now stands is a keep vote with appropriate re-directs/moves, etc. Shearonink (talk) 14:01, 19 July 2010 (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.