Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florescu brothers


 * 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. Canvassed vote discarded Spartaz Humbug! 07:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Florescu brothers

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I proposed merging this article, but received an objection from a single-edit account, so I've come to AfD to hopefully sort things out.

Basically, the only remotely noteworthy achievement of these two individuals consists in having directed So Bright Is the View, itself a film of borderline notability. The entirety of what exists about them - much of this material being of dubious quality - revolves around said film. If they go on to make other films, have other achievements, or receive coverage independent of the film, we should perhaps reconsider, but for now, a standalone article simply isn't justified. All that can be said about them can easily be said in the article on the film, and they do not meet the criteria set out at WP:ARTIST. - Biruitorul Talk 18:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Notability is determined by the Basic Criteria. If the basic criteria has not been met, then reference should be made to the Additional Criteria. The Basic Criteria are as follows: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" (see, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28people%29#Basic_criteria). The coverage qualifies, with multiple independent and reputable sources from various publications (none of which is dubious, and none which qualifies as a "self-published or questionable source"; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources). Finally, whether the film is good or bad is not relevant. Whether it is a blockbuster hit or an indie/arthouse flick is also not determinative. However, the film's premiere in the Official Selection of an FIAPF Category A film festival (a "significant exhibition") and its subsequent acquisition for distribution in North America is indicative, for better or worse. Paperpencils (talk) 21:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)paperpencils — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperpencils (talk • contribs) 19:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC) Paperpencils (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)Paperpencils
 * That's a nice spin on WP:ARTIST point 4, but I'm afraid it isn't going to fly. The clause provides that "the person's work.... has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition". Now, it's true that the MIFF is a significant exhibition, but it's not true, at all, that the Florescus' film formed "a substantial part" thereof. Well over a hundred films played at that festival, and only one of theirs - indeed, the only film they've ever made - was exhibited. In no sense does that constitute a "substantial part". Especially as their film was not even in competition.
 * As for the rest, this is about the film (and is a blog post, one of those dubious sources I mentioned), this is about the film, this is about the film, this is about the film, this is about the film, and the remaining two are about their uncle. So, no, the brothers have not in fact received anything remotely approaching the standards set by WP:BIO. I'm still waiting to hear a plausible explanation as to why they are notable, as defined by one of our guidelines. - Biruitorul Talk 22:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Their one film is not enough to establish their notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Paperpencils (talk) 06:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)paperpencils
 * Keep  Superseded by later keep vote with clearer rationale below "Additional Criteria" is not necessary, as "Basic Criteria" is already met, i.e. significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. "Additional Criteria" do not need to be met, as the subjects of the article are notable for two events: the making of So Bright Is the View, and the creation of the Romanian Independent Film Collective, the first democratic film collective in post-Revolution Romania, where independent, non-state financed and non-corporate financed film is a rarity. Nevertheless, the "Additional Criteria" is also met under WP:Filmmaker. Official Selection of an FIAPF Category A film festival is a substantial part and distinguishes films of artistic merit from films there for the "film market" and other non-Official Selection films (e.g. commercial premieres, retrospectives). Biruitorul is incorrect to say that the film is one out of 100, as the list he provided is not a list of films in Official Selection but of all films presented. He misunderstands film festival terminology. WP:Filmmaker therefore met. Of course most of the articles are going to be about their film, because they're filmmakers.


 * Merge I am the creator of both articles. Biruitorul wants to merge this article with the film, not to delete the information. I see no problem with merging the articles. Marian1981 (talk) 08:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have merged the pages, in accordance with what Biruitorul wishes. I have done my best to make it look right. There is now no need for more discussion on this. Marian1981 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Question - are there any sources that contain biographical information on the brother beyond a very brief outline of their film career? If not, then merging to their only film seems like a good idea.  Irregardless of notability, if there is no additional RS information about the brother than what is already in the article it doesn't make much sense to have separate film & biographical articles. That isn't a judgement on importance (which is what notability often means in the real world, but NOT what it means on Wikipedia), just a reflection of the best way to organize our content. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

No one is discussing anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperpencils1 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Articles should not be merged while being discussed at AfD. Therefore, I have reverted you. Mdann52 (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * To clarify, it is, not Papercencils1, who keeps trying to short circuit the AfD and merge the article prematurely. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:GNG and WP:BASIC are met: Multiple independent reliable sources. If someone disputes this, let him call out a specific source and name it as unreliable. The nominator has only claimed that one is a blog. The rest are reliable and even the one he has named doesn't appear to be a blog. (Update: I have removed the alleged blog and the somewhat redundant sources). Therefore WP:GNG are met. No need for Additional Guidelines once WP:GNG are met. Furthermore, the subjects of the article do not meet the three necessary conditions that "each" need to be fulfilled to call for merging under WP:BLP1E. Size of the article is a fallacious argument, per Wikipedia rules (WP:ASZ). Finally, at least two out of the three (and possibly three out of three) "reasons to avoid merging" are present: Merging would be clunky with inappropriate biographical information appearing on the film's article, and the topics are discrete subjects "even though they might be short" (WP:MERGEREASON). To say an article looks good or looks too small are fallacious arguments (WP:ATA). The rules of Wikipedia should be read and respected to maintain an open, inclusive and enthused community and to prevent arbitrariness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperpencils (talk • contribs)


 * Keep. Though the article is a short stub and would hopefully be expanded in time, the sources show notability. Billy Hathorn (talk) 19:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note to closing administrator - this vote was canvassed: see here. As a quid pro quo, the canvassed user asked for a vote on another AfD, which was given by the original canvasser. - Biruitorul Talk 20:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * False That's not right. Check the timing of all the posts. There was no "quid pro quo." I asked for his input. I also asked for other people's input above, all of which turned out to be against my vote. You seem to jump to negative conclusions easily.
 * By all means, let's check the times.
 * 19:16 - Paperpencils canvasses Billy Hathorn.
 * 19:22 - Billy Hathorn promises his vote and canvasses for another AfD.
 * 19:26 - Billy Hathorn votes here, delivering on his promise.
 * 19:37 - Paperpencils performs quid pro quo, voting where Billy Hathorn directed him to.
 * So, yes, we have a classic case of canvassing combined with a quid pro quo, an exchange of votes. Something that is, of course, not allowed under WP:CANVASS. - Biruitorul Talk 20:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So what happened between him "promising" his vote and him voting? Nothing. Thank you for proving my point for me.
 * There was no "promise" to begin with. What are we arguing about here?
 * I'm done with this particular discussion, and will wait for the closing administrator to decide what to make of the situation. - Biruitorul Talk 23:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Updated I’ve added a source on the Florescu Brothers article by Mediafax. I don’t think anyone can dispute the reliability of Mediafax, a news agency (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_news_agencies). For those of you who aren’t Romanian, it’s Romania’s equivalent of Reuters or AP. The article isn’t too long but it references the brothers and their history, going beyond the film. The brothers were notable enough even to be named in the title, which makes sense because they are quite well-known among Romanians in the art film/indie circuit. Hopefully this will end the discussion. But I would’ve liked us all to have had a kinder debate. I think I might have made some mistakes, and I’m sorry. I’m new here and so I’m clumsy. Paperpencils (talk) 22:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Paperpencils
 * No, this will certainly not "end the discussion", which is scheduled to run through April 1 (one week after it began). Because the link you've added, based on a press release, more or less includes the exact same text as this and this, both of which were already cited in the article &mdash; in other words, you've added nothing new. Like the filmreporter and cinemarx pages, this article deals with the film and its screening at the MIFF, not primarily with the directors of the film. Yes, they are mentioned in passing, and they should be mentioned in passing in the article on their film, but thus far, nothing you've brought forth either deals primarily with the brothers, or validates a separate article based on any reasonable interpretation of the biographical notability criteria. - Biruitorul Talk 23:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * They are not mentioned "in passing." Half of the sentences in that article refer to them! More than half if you include the title! They are a substantial part of the article. Yes, I agree that there could be some duplicate information between this and the other sources, but if you want, you can take down the sources you think are redundant. So at this point are the sources reliable? Yes. Now the only question is whether all the information from the two pages should be on two pages or one. If you think it's appropriate for biographical information on the directors to be present on the page about the film, then that's an opinion you and I don't share, and I've addressed these arguments above in my "Keep" Vote. Let's just agree to disagree for now and let the admins decide. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperpencils (talk • contribs) 23:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The only mention of the brothers in this piece of news (other than the one that cites their opinion on the film) is in the last phrase that states "The Franco-Romanian twins Michael and Joel Florescu have begun their filmmaking projects in Bucharest, as part of the Romanian Independent Film Collective, a group of professionals and amateurs in the movie business, that was assembled and is functioning based on democratic principles." - actually, most of this phrase is about the group they are with.- Andrei (talk) 07:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Half of the article refers to them. The third paragraph is about, of all things, their educational background and about their aesthetic style. The fourth paragraph refers to their production method and views on independent filmmaking. The last paragraph refers to their ethnic origins and the beginning of their creative efforts. Short of an explicit biography, you can't ask for much more. If you want to help expand this admittedly short page, then please go ahead as there is more than enough information to do so. Lastly, as a matter of fact, "their opinion on the film" is never even stated.
 * "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1]" WP:GNG. The admins may use Google Translate to verify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperpencils (talk • contribs) 08:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 10:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the film, though eventually they probably will deserve this article! Wgolf (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Procedural note: The checkuser findings at Sockpuppet investigations/Paperpencils are relevant to this discussion.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * To make it easier for the closing administrator, I've struck all the comments of the socks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 16 April 2015 (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.