Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hood 2 Hood: The Blockumentary


 * 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. Big Bird seems to have the most fleshed-out policy based argument that addresses the sources found. NW ( Talk ) 23:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hood 2 Hood: The Blockumentary

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Lack of notability all the way around. The film was made by a non-notable director, distributed by a non-notable company and has no notable stars. A lack of media coverage by reliable sources. No gnews hits came back for it. One entry in the article from a weekly newspaper seems to be about it and that article isn't about this film alone, it's about films on a particular subject. Most ghits come back with either places to buy it, non-reliable sources or Wikipedia/mirrors. Article doesn't really even assert notability, aside from the fact that the film exists and was mentioned in an article. All in all, this film appears to fail WP:FILMNOT. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep Theres more media appearances here. Click on "media". Portillo (talk) 08:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but the New York Times "coverage" isn't an article at all. It is the blurb for the movie guide, just telling us about the movie so we know the subject. Not even a review of the movie, let alone an article about it. I already mentioned the other "media coverage", which was the weekly newspaper. The third "coverage", the Las Vegas Sun, is very misleading. It was actually an article about a man who appearedin the film and was arrested because he was seen in it. The quotes shown in the link you provided aren't actually those of the author, they are quotes he got from the film itself. You can read the actual article here: . So, in summary.....you have a weekly paper talking about it, the NYT not writing an article about it and the Las Vegas Sun talking about an oddity connected with the movie and the movies website misrepresenting quotes of themselves as quotes of the author. Sorry, but that's not significant coverage. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Tell me this then, is it against Wikipedia rules to offer a Wiki Admin a bribe to keep an article? Portillo (talk) 09:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? BTW, the criteria at WP:NOTFILM would specifically exclude the NYT reference as coverage: "Trivial coverage, such as newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews," plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides".Niteshift36 (talk) 11:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete As I see it, the only notabe thing about this film is the fact that it's available for purchase. Skarebo (talk) 08:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I was planning on nominating this for deletion myself for the exact same reason. JBsupreme (talk) 14:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Extensive coverage from the East Bay Express here, and the DVD was used by police as evidence according to Google News and the Las Vegas Sun article.--Michig (talk) 19:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * We talked about the East Bay Express, which is a weekly paper. The article wasn't solely about this film. The Sun article is an oddity connected to the film, not about the film itself. Those quotes in the article are mostly from the movie promotion. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter whether the East Bay Express article is solely about the film - it gives extensive (well beyond what is regarded as "significant") coverage of the film. It also doesn't make any difference that the paper is weekly.--Michig (talk) 05:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does matter if the article is mainly about the film or not. An article about the film and an article about those types of films that talks abut this one, among others, is very different. And yes, the size/status of the paper is relevant. Have you actually read WP:NOTFILM? "This guideline includes published works such as books, television documentaries, full-length featured newspaper articles from large circulation newspapers, full-length magazine reviews and criticism excluding the following" This was not a full length feature article about the film, nor is a newspaper that has a total circulation of 76,000 for an entire week going to qualify as a "large circulation" paper. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue here is whether the East Bay Express fulfils the criteria of WP:RS and whether that article provides significant coverage of the film in question. The fact that the article also discusses the wider topic of that type of film is not a reason to discount this as a source. See WP:N: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material".--Michig (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, I defer to the criteria for WP:NOTFILM. It was obviously written that way for a reason. A paper of 76K for a week is not large circulation. Doesn't it stick out to you that after 4 years of being out, the only thing you can dig up is that and some borderline "coverage" in the LV Sun (which only happened because of the arrest)? That indicates a real lack of notability to me. The fact that you have to search so hard for debateable sources seems to indicate that the film isn't really that notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A single editer believing that 76k per week circulation of a source somehow "disqualifies" that source does not disqualify it. A source could have only 7k per week circulation and assuming the source is independent of the topic and have editorial control over its content, it would still be a reliable source.  That a user had "to search so hard" for sources has absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia's notability guidelines. --Oakshade (talk) 18:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ...and I didn't have to search very hard at all to find that. I don't know where that idea came from. Also the emphasis on entire week is odd - it's a weekly paper, so the circulation for an entire week is the same as the circulation for a single issue.--Michig (talk) 18:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —PC78 (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course you didn't have to search hard to find it, the link is in the article and I mentioned it in the nom. The idea that you searched for somethng already there at least provides me with a good laugh. I'm quoting the guideline and, compared with other circulations, a circulation of 76K per WEEK isn't very big. And no, the circulation of a free paper once a week isn't the same as selling 76k a day. I hope you know better and are just hoping I don't. Apparently I'm not the only one as another experienced editor mentioned that he was considering nominating the article himself. But I'm happy to see Oakshade is back to contest every word I say in an AfD. But he's wrong.....coincidental mention in the Sun isn't adequate coverage. Had that same man been seen in "Jackass" instead of this "film", the Sun would have never mentioned this non-notable work in its pages. You can say "prove that" all you want, but you and I both know it is true. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You said yourself above that this is a weekly paper - that means one issue per week. So however many the circulation is per week is the SAME as the circulation per issue. Do you not understand that?--Michig (talk) 11:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you provide arguments that have nothing to do with WP:NOTABILITY or any of our guidelines ("you have to search so hard for debateable sources"???), you're going to be called on them.--Oakshade (talk) 15:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I understand what weekly means. What you apparently fail to understand is that you can't extrapolate that to meaning that it would be equal to a daily paper that does 76K per day, every day. Even daily papers have days of the week where their circulation is higher than others. Many daily papers have a higher Sunday circulation than the rest of the week, weekly papers get a one day circulation higher than they would if they were a daily. And actually, according to their website, their weekly press run is only 50,000, not 76,000. That means they print 50K, not that 50k are actually taken by readers. So, in reality, that puts them under 50K in readership. That's not sounding like a "large circulation" paper to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 11:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you point to where anyone in this discussion other than youself has "extrapolated that to meaning that it would be equal to a daily paper that does 76K per day". Nobody has made any such statement, so arguing against it is a little bizarre.--Michig (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, now you want a direct quote. Then tell me what you mean by talking about "they only publish one issue". They only print 50K papers a week. That will be less than 50k readers in an entire week. That's not large circulation no matter how you twist it.


 * Keep - The East Bay Express and Las Vegas Sun articles do provide adequate substantial coverage per WP::NOTABILITY.--Oakshade (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not if you bother to read WP:NOTFILM. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've bothered to read WP:NOTFILM thank you and it doesn't trump WP:NOTABILITY. It's the opposite.  If a topic passes WP:NOTABILITY, it doesn't need to additionally pass some kind of sub-genre category simply by virtue of being related to that category.--Oakshade (talk) 15:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yet, oddly, a lot of editors do feel that since time and effort in gaining consensus was put into these guidelines that trying to just use GNG to shoehorn in some subject that otherwise can't cut it for notability standards otherwise is really just an end-run. Since both NOTFILM and GNG are guidelines (and not policy), there is little reason to exclude the specific film guidelines in favor of a generic one. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, per general notability guidelines that are met by virtue of East Bay Express and Las Vegas Sun articles. Both of the above articles meet WP:N's stated requirements of "Significant coverage" which asks that the "sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content". Both of those articles address the subject in detail and the information is stated explicitly so that WP:OR is not violated. The criteria for WP:RS requires that the sources used are "credible published materials with a reliable publication process". The circulation of a publication does not have any direct correlation with the editorial process and fact checking so we shouldn't discount the East Bay Express due to its sales. The Las Vegas Sun is also a reliable source. Since it has already come up that the Sun's article mentions the film in relation to another event, please note that GNG guidelines specifically state that the subject of the article "need not be the main topic of the source material" in order to qualify as significant coverage. If additional sources exist, they certainly should be used to expand the article further but the above two sources are enough to satisfy the notability guidelines. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:07, 8 October 2009 (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.