Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hollywood North


 * 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. --Luigi30 (Ta&lambda;k) 14:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hollywood North

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Neologism and Blatant Advertising Donteatyellowsnow 04:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This page is up for deletion for the reason: neologism (specialized and unclear terminology and/or misnomer) per Wiki criteria for deletion - neologisms.

To quote from Wiki "AVOID NEOLOGISMS": "An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material (which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy).

"To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers ABOUT the term — not books and papers that use the term. (Note that Wiktionary is not considered to be a reliable source for this purpose.)"

The references cited do not DEFINE the term, nor do they DISCUSS the term. Furthermore, there is no such place as "Hollywood North" and it is vague, not widely used, and undocumented and unverified exactly what "Hollywood North" is. Unlike other citys named "Moscow" or "Hollywood" it is not a specific, nor documented "place". The editors of this page have argued and fought over whether it is Vancouver, Toronto or the entire country of Canada. Again, this is vague. It is also confusing because there is a real city called North Hollywood, California as well as an already existing Hollywood, California and a real Hollywood filmmaking community (which this is not) -- so it is misleading and confusing and is attempting to make contact by nefarious association with the real Hollywood, California film community and attempting to benefit financially from it. This page also has original research as well as unverifiable and/or uncited or completely inaccurate or self-serving PR-based research and propaganda. It is also blatant advertising for the Canadian film industry and various related groups and companies. If not deleted, this page should absolutely be renamed the "Canadian film industry". - Donteatyellowsnow 04:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's documented and verified, the article just hasn't been verified per Wikipedia standards, and whatnot. It's a common term used to desribe media filmed in Canada. --- theblueflamingo  Squawk 04:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep very notable as the refs demonstrate- if confusing titles are a reason for deletion, we should delete everything in Moscow (disambiguation) save the capital of Russia. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - It is not a "documented" nor verifiable term. It has never been defined in any common form -- those from Toronto trying to claim it as well as those from Vancouver (and apparently others). The attempt to define it without appropriate sources for its definition constitutes "original research" and is not permitted. There is only one Hollywood proper and it is not in Canada. Also it is blatant advertising for the Canadian film production community and various film commissions and/or groups. 76.174.42.95 04:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please note that the above comment is the sole edit by that anon. --Ckatz chat spy  04:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The wording and style of the previous item by "76.174.42.95" is identical to that of User:Donteatyellowsnow. An IP address search is unable to locate a point of origin for this IP address, suggesting it originates in a corporate network rather than a nationally/state/city-identifiable locale.  Given these considerations, and the various demosntrations of misleading and misrepresentative nature of Donteatyellowsnow's role in the recent history of this article, as well as the near-identical wording, a checkuser report should be filed to determine the validity of this "vote".  Even though IP address "votes" are automatically discounted.Skookum1 04:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, while IPs are discounted at RfA, they aren't at AfD. In addition, donteat could have accidentally logged out.  Altogether, though, I'm convinced it's the same person. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - While I'm not taking sides here, AfD's are not a vote but a discussion to achieve consensus on the action to be taken. Luke! 05:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's why it's a "vote"/!vote and not a vote. ;) Carson 05:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Very well referenced, does not read as advertising. The article does need some cleanup to be encyclopedic, though. No need to Wikilink all those movies and TV shows there, when there's a See X for complete listing right above them. Those sections should be rewritten in paragraph form with just a few choice Wikilinks and citations. Still, not a valid reason to delete. Satisfies WP:V, WP:RS and WP:N. -- Kesh 04:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - well-documented, all one has to do is listen to, watch, or read the news in Canada and elsewhere to find the term in use. Notion that a Wikipedia article will influence major Hollywood producers to film in Canada is ludicrous. Misuse of AfD process, related to edit disputes at Hollywood North and Runaway production. --Ckatz chat spy  04:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep — Indeed, the term is routinely used up here. Geo Swan 04:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep This is well-established term in both Canadian and American media, and has currency within the US film industry, and not just when its personnel are in Vancouver or Toronto or any other Canadian film centre; a simple Google search will find innumerable references, not all of them from Canadian points of origin; even if they were, if it were only a Canadian-only term this still doesn't not disqualify it as being of encyclopedic interest. This AFD is spurious and only the latest part of a hostile and destructive campaign by User:Donteatyellowsnow to undermine the article, which has included misrepresentations of edits and content and references placed by other editors; this campaign is in and of itself apparently a p.r. campaign and entirely self-promotional on the part of a Hollywood-industry loyalist hostile to Runaway productions (who has also attacked the Canadian film industry in that article...)).  Please note above that Donteatyellowsnow has called this AFD a "candidate for speedy deletion", which an AFD is not, although earlier tonight this user tried to place the speedy deletion template, as well as other "nuisance templates", all to advance a one-sided campaign to erase "Hollywood North" as a term from existence at all.  It has over 15 years of history and a widespread literature attached to it.  A literature to which Donteatyellowsnow is hostile, but which exists nonetheless, and will continue to despite Donteatyellowsnow's insistence that it be done away with.....Skookum1 04:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I fail to see how this is a "Neologism" or "Blatant Advertising". I'm sorry but I find it hard to assume good faith in this nomination. --Wildnox(talk) 04:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Even if the term were an exclusively Canadian PR campaign, that in itself is notable. Pomte 05:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; many citations from a wide range of sources. Can't be advertising because nobody decides to move their production to Canada based on just a Wikipedia article. Carson 05:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - per Ckatz and Skookum1's reasoning. As indicated in the article, the subject is very well referenced by non-governmental organizations, government and by other publications on both sides of the border. Luke! 05:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per Luke! Killroy4 06:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I've spent a considerable amount of time on this article, and considering the references are the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, City of Vancouver, Government of Canada, Statistics Canada, Government of Toronto, Vancouver Mayor's Office, Toronto Film Office, and the Vancouver Film Comission, I would say those sources are even more notable than any magazine. Furthermore, this article is not truly about a place but about the origins of a term, why this term exists, and the factual evidence that supported the creation of this nickname. Mkdw talk 06:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per all above. Even Calgary sometimes tries to pass itself off as Hollywood North.  Well referenced, verifiable information. Does need a little cleanup though, as the random list of productions in Vancouver is unwieldly, and adds nothing to the article.   Resolute 07:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Move to a title such as Film production in Canada. --Metropolitan90 08:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The article isn't about film production in Canada. Runaway production and Cinema of Canada are more about the Canadian production industry. Also the Canadian Film Production industry is vastly more complicated than the scope of Hollywood North. Essencially the articles would also talk about different subjects since Hollywood North mainly talks about how the term "Hollywood North" came to be and the evidence to support. While a lot of information about productions is included such as the number of productions, the article Film production in Canada should truly talk about independent films, Canada Council, Canadian film process, IATSE, budgeting, world scope, competition with US films, etc. and not about records held by Canadian cities on a North American plane. In my opinion =). I think Hollywood North is a fine article that talks about a well documented and interesting topic. I mean, some diversity in articles is acceptable, afterall we technically for the same reasons could put it all under the article Canada. =) Mkdw talk 08:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

*Keep - encyclopaedic, sourced to the extreme - I assume the nominator must be joking, right ... ? WilyD 18:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Verifiable term, widely used, and the article has an abundance of sources. If an article is made about the film of this title, there may need to be a DAB page created, though. 23skidoo 17:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - bad faith nomination. WilyD 19:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep term I have heard in conversation and the press. TonyTheTiger 20:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Complies with content policies and guidelines. The article is verified with reliable sources. Agent 86 22:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nomination is utterly unconvincing. The article is well sourced and its subject is notable. WJBscribe 22:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Regarding Donteatyellowsnow's changes to the AfD nom: I don't see how this qualifies as a neologism. More appropriately, it seems to be a toponym. And the article does show citations for notability of the term, which can be verified. That, plus the response here, means I doubt this nom has a snowball's chance. -- Kesh 23:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - You don't have to like a term for it to be valid, nor does it have to have a single specific meaning or be otherwise non-confusing. A google search for "Hollywood North"+Vancouver turns up over 93,000 hits; change Vancouver to Canada and it's over 150,000. Bobanny 23:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Verifiable, encyclopedic, seems like a decent article to me. ShadowHalo 06:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is well referenced, it is not blatant advertising. It should be kept --Borgarde 09:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment In regards to User:Donteatyellowsnow, its nothing but WP:SNOW. I also find it relatively difficult to believe that anyone who has done any in depth reading of any of the articles, critically thinks about what they're reading, will see that such references such as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's article Hollywood North to grow again directly mentions the name, and the boost it will get from tax concessions made by BC's Premier Glen Clark. Lois Siegel, award winning journalist and photography who is named in Capital City's Top 50 People by the Ottawa Citizen wrote, "In my mind “Hollywood North” is synonymous with the phrase “runaway productions” which the new governor elect of California has sworn to terminate. The British Columbia film industry is firmly convinced that it has an exclusive license to the name, and that it should only be applied to Vancouver." Mkdw talk 17:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This is an important, well written article that has recently received some needed edits. I firmly believe that this is a bad faith nomination (one of several) by User:Donteatyellowsnow who I believe should be blocked from Wikipedia for being a heavily biased troll. GeeCee 04:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The article seems to be about a phenomenon/industry which is generally known by a term that merely originated as a neologism. This is the same as Silicon Valley or the Research Triangle or for that matter the United States of America.  I can't imagine that we wouldn't keep this article.  Although I would take yellowsnow's suggestion and create a redirect at "Canadian film industry".  --JGGardiner 02:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Consider moving to a more formal name such as Canadian film industry. A sector of the economy that's this important warrants a serious and well-rounded article. The focus on its nickname looks a bit strange. Kla'quot 02:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Agree with Bobanny. 11:29, 29 January 2007 — 154.20.77.76 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note - This page was originally about the meaning of the name, not about the Canadian film industry by extension, and at least by its origin it didn't include all of (as the definining characteristic of "Hollywood North" is out-of-country productions/production money, not the Canadian film industry per se, and as already accounted in Cinema of Canada and also apparently Film production in Canada. CanCon is not, originally at least, relevant to the concept/phenomenon of Hollywood North. Skookum1 22:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions.   -- Eastmain 22:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Agree with most, commonly referred-to term both in and out of industry.--Keefer4 05:41, 30 January 2007 (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.