Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kids-R


 * 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 -- Y not? 04:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Kids-R

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable film. Not-yet-released, no reliable sources. Deprodded and detagged by article creator (which is okay by policy), who appears (based on username and claims on article's image-file description) to be the writer of the film itself. COI was one of the tags removed and history of his userpage suggests he's mainly here to promote it (which is not okay). DMacks (talk) 18:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * User:DMacks, with all due respect I doubt you are an acknowledged film critic and that you have the right to judge. On top of that, claiming that this is a non-notable film is simply disrespectful and rude.


 * Regarding broken links - thank you very much for the note, you were right.


 * Regarding "no reliable sources" - I would dare to assume that IMDB, ABC News, etc. are the reliable sources indeed.


 * Regarding your quote "COI was one of the tags removed and history of his userpage suggests he's mainly here to promote it (which is not okay)" - you are wrong, this wikipedia article was created purely with informative goal. Also, history of my userpage does NOT suggest anything, unless an imagination is involved.


 * All in all, based on User:DMacks notes, I might assume that User:DMacks has personal pre-justice towards either the movie itself or its topic. I would like to ask Wikipedia community to protect this article from personal attacks by User:DMacks and I would be happy to see any criticism or suggestions from any Wikipedia contributor who didn't interact and has no connections with User:DMacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelDudko (talk • contribs) 18:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Please watch the hositlity, MichaelDudko. Let's keep it civil. That being said, if it was mentioned by ABC News, I can't find it, and the movie isn't mentioned in any of the references on the article. IMDb is not a valid source because it's editable by anyone with a membership. Due to that, I vote for Delete. That being said, if there's more information out there, I'll happily change my vote. Grande (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much Grande for your honest feedback. I would like to note though that Wikipedia is also editable by anyone, IMDB though has a commission (that works full time for a salary) that can disapprove and reject anything and anyone. But once again, thank you for your explanation. Also, I would be happy to share with you Grande a password protected link so you could watch the trailer - I'm sure it will help you to change your mind, as this project advocates for fundamental human rights and it might explain why such outstanding and huge people are involved with this project. Would you like to take a look at the video? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelDudko (talk • contribs) 15:32, July 24, 2013
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 19:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 19:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Notability (films) is the relevant guideline. In that light (which is long-standing consensus for WP, regardless of my opinion),references are needed that have in-depth reporting about the film itself, not about the topics that the film discusses. Notability of a topic is not inherited by every work that is about that topic. DMacks (talk) 19:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * DMacks (talk) with all due respect - I can't afford myself to waist my time to dispute with you about irrelevant things so you could get a sense of importance. However, I would be happy to give any feedback to all other contributors of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelDudko (talk • contribs) 15:32, July 24, 2013


 * Delete since the topic does not meet the general notability guidelines nor the notability guidelines for films. The general notability guidelines say, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." This means that the documentary film itself must have received this coverage, not the subject matter of the film. If the film is released in September as planned, then coverage about the film, especially reviews, would mean we can then have a Wikipedia article about the film. It is too soon right now. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 20:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Erik I would still insist that IMDB is reliable source as it is business driven and is the paramount independent professional online film resource. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelDudko (talk • contribs) 20:30, July 24, 2013‎
 * Michael, IMDb is a database that lists films that are both notable and non-notable using Wikipedia's threshold. As a database, it does not put any emphasis on a film's notability for encyclopedic purposes. Wikipedia follows other sources' lead in covering a topic. It cannot lead the way. This film needs to receive significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. If the film gets enough attention upon release to be covered and reviewed, then we can revisit this topic. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 20:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * From WP:RS/IMDB: "IMDb content is user-submitted and often subject to incorrect speculation and rumor. The use of the IMDb on Wikipedia for referencing is considered unacceptable and strongly discouraged. It should also be noted that its romanization of Chinese titles does not follow the standard. Reliable sourcing from established publications cannot be stressed enough. Anonymous or pseudonymous sources from online fansites are generally not acceptable." Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Erik and Michaelzeng7, IMDB is an independent and "professional" resource run by chosen professional industry insiders and it does NOT use Wikipedia's threshold.
 * Second of all, not only notable films are listed by Wikipedia, for example, I checked the list of Categories: Documentary films about child abuse and randomly picked The Harvest (2010 film).
 * This film does NOT meet your criteria yet it (as many others) is listed. Wikipedia - is an encyclopedia and therefore its mission is very much simple to register things that happen. This movie is something that happened.
 * And that's a fact. Regarding your link WP:RS/IMDB - the author of the article might have a very much superficial knowledge in general. For example, you can find [Box Office Mojo] amongst credible resource. The author of that article probably does NOT know that [Box Office Mojo] belongs to and run by IMDB (also it says IMDB is listed amongst questionable resource, not unacceptable - even though it is hilarious). — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelDudko (talk • contribs) 17:15, July 24, 2013
 * You're right that IMDb does not use Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion. And Wikipedia does not use IMDb's threshold for inclusion. I looked at The Harvest (2010 film), and it is notable per Wikipedia's notability guidelines. See the reviews here. They should be added to the article, but that topic is notable in general. We can have articles about events themselves, but it is very different to have articles about documentaries about events. The documentaries themselves must be notable, not the event itself. It does not mean every film about adoption is automatically notable. Why can you not wait until the film's release to see if it will be covered then? If there is enough coverage, there can be an article permanently. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 21:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Erik I noticed that you have been writing articles about movies for a while. Just looked at some - nice job! If you would send me an email (you can find mine on IMDB) I would be happy to send you a link to watch our trailer and some excerpts. I hope you would be satisfied with what you will see, and hopefully you could write your review on us as well? comment added by MichaelDudko (talk)
 * I can't help you. I have "rescued" some articles from deletion because I am able to find significant coverage that demonstrates the topic's notability and to reference it in the Wikipedia article so others can also see that it is notable. I am not finding coverage here. Nor can I review the film; I am not an accredited film critic like one you would see at Metacritic. Can you please answer why you cannot wait till the film's release to see if it will be covered and reviewed? Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 14:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well Erik (talk &#124; contribs), this is a Catch 22... Even to review the film itself, they would need to have an access to a reliable source of information, and apparently Wikipedia is one of them. And you guys are in control here of this situation, in control of access to the information. Apparently an article on Wikipedia doesn't effect success of any movie, as Wikipedia is not neither a commercial nor advertisement media, but Wiki is important for those who seek to check facts. So what kind of facts we want to present here and for whom? For example, someone watched the movie and wants to double check some of the facts (so far we added only 7 references, but we will add more references and more facts) - he or she can just go to Wiki and click the references/the links. Another reason why do we need this information online is actually because the movie itself has never been a primarily goal of the project. The movie is just a tool - we have always planned to pursue changing the policies that negatively effect chances of orphaned children to find their loving families. So but to change the policies we need to draw people's attention to this problem. But the problem is that somehow this information is being ignored. Most people in the U.S. are simply unaware that in some countries like U.K. white people can NOT adopt black kids for example. There are so many problems with this system. So why don't I want to wait? Because I've been to these orphanages, and I've seen what's going on there... I can wait, but millions of children can't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelDudko (talk • contribs) 19:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Film critics do not depend on Wikipedia articles to review films. In my experience, they review films if they are screened at relatively prominent festivals, if the film has a fairly significant distribution, or if it was successfully advertised to them. Films that have not been released have Wikipedia articles because there is already existing coverage. Trade papers like Variety or The Hollywood Reporter do this for Hollywood films, and there is even more coverage upon release. This particular film's notability has to be based on whether or not it is covered when it is released. We also have to separate the documentary from its subject matter here. We can write about the subject matter at adoption and its sub-articles (and even create new ones as necessary), but that is distinct from the film itself. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 14:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * INCUBATE as the film is not yet released and lacks coverage. Even though this may be considered a worthy topic, that subjective "worthiness" does not (yet) equate to notability. Certainly the topic of adoption problems is widely covered in multiple reliable sources, but this specfic film is not (yet). So we have a failure of WP:NFF. Toward WP:COI, the film article's author is User:MichaelDudko... the same name as film's writer/director/producer. Writing about a topic with which one has a too-close interest is discuoraged. So to Michael Dudko, and with respects, we have criteria which we use for determining if a film topic merits inclusion. And when it is too soon, it is too soon. However, and in considering the topic itself and the notables whose stories are attached, it is quite likely this will receive the requisite independent coverage in reliable sources either right before or certainly after its release... even if lacking it now.  I believe the topic has potential for eventual improvement, and point out policy instructing, "articles which have potential, but which do not yet meet Wikipedia's quality standards, should be moved to the Wikipedia:Article Incubator, where they can continue to be collaboratively edited before either "graduating" to mainspace or ultimately being deleted."   It serves the project to have this incubated for collaborative editing as its release draws near.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. for your wise and argument-based reasoning, it seems to be impartial, balanced and fair. Kind regards — comment added by MichaelDudko (talk • contribs) 19:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I recognize the importance of the message you wish shared, but as a Wikipedia editor who has himself "rescued" a few articles, I need to fairly apply the rules we have here. If you send out screener copies to the major media (ie: New York Times, Los Angeles Times, The Guardian, Variety, Washington Post, etc,) and they review the film and publish commentary and analysis, Wikipedia-style notability will be assured.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Incubate or userfy. I can see this becoming notable in the future, when it is released, so having an article all ready to go would be a good choice. Sadly I can't support fully keeping it right now as notability still has yet to pop up. Beerest355 Talk 04:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your understanding Beerest355 Talk - Incubate seems to be a fair compromise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelDudko (talk • contribs) 15:54, 29 July 2013
 * Delete for failure to meet the general notability guidelines and the notability guidelines for films. Feel free to userfy to MichaelDudko's sandbox. --Bejnar (talk) 12:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I had considered that as my first choice but instead opted for incubation because of the contributor's newness and obvious COI... so as to ensure we have neutral and more experienced eyes on the article.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I most sincerely appreciate your support  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q., and as you kindly advised, I will update the article as soon as we'll get the coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelDudko (talk • contribs) 15:59, 29 July 2013
 * 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.