Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Venturi


 * 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. --Core desat  05:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Mark Venturi

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

Unnotable director. The page has been speedily deleted once and was promptly recreated. One or more editors keeps deleting the db tag without discussion or addressing the problems with the article. janejellyroll 05:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted material, no?- Dmz5 *Edits**Talk* 05:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Name-dropping is always a sure sign of the non-notability of a subject.-- Dmz5 *Edits**Talk* 05:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think the problems have been addressed. Venturi is notable in that he's a currently working filmmaker and his films can be seen online. And, if you'd give them a bit of time, you'd find that they're actually pretty good. Jung Dresden
 * Actually I don't think any problems have been addressed, this is still a non-notable subject who has been given an article with dubious sources that consists of idle name dropping and original research.-- Dmz5 *Edits**Talk* 05:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete non-notable, no reliable sources. Reads like it was written by the subject himself or someone else in a conflict of interest. Resolute 07:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The article was not written by the subject. I don't know what there is in there that suggests it is. Perhaps it's just written in a style that's slightly different to what you're used to.

And what does it take for someone to be notable? I can't see how Venturi isn't notable. Jung Dresden
 * Delete no claim to notability given, let alone any sources showing that the subject meets Notability. Nuttah68 11:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, even if the subject is notable the sources do not demonstrate that, If that changes by the end of this AfD I could change my vote Alf photoman 16:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Vanity puffpiece - flush it. --Larry laptop 16:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

So the article makes no "claim to notability", yet it's also a "Vanity puffpiece"? If it exists purely to praise Mr Venturi how can it not be making his notability clear? And how could anything be added to suggest his notability without it being attacked for being too favourable to him? Unless what you really want is a claim to notoriety. I noticed that the section referring to David Fox and Venturi's unmade film was removed. If that was showing partiality to Venturi it would've accused Fox of ruining his project. It probably would've called Fox a bastard, or something. All it said was that they had a disagreement. Jung Dresden
 * Comment 'how can it not be making his notability clear?' Notability is made clear by citing reliable, independent sources as per Verifiability. Nuttah68 17:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * and it was entirely unsourced - if you have a source that meets the requirements of WP:V, feel free to stick it back in. --Larry laptop 17:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete NN. John Vandenberg 14:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't "entirely unsourced". Perhaps there weren't enough there or some of them were inappropriate, but sources were provided. And there's still one source there despite constant edits. Beyond that, there are probably errors on every page on this site. I was looking at an article about some Australian singer just a few minutes ago, and there didn't seem to be any sources there apart from a picture of him with a bunch of children. If you're going to have a user-created encyclopedia you're going to get errors and it's not going to be perfect. The point, though, is that it can be remarkably broad and cover everything, rather than just a few topics selected by an elite group of editors, whether a result of there own preferences or just their own limited knowledge.

I don’t believe this article should be deleted at all, but at the very least it should be given a bit of time so it can be improved. Keep the tag there if you want. Jung Dresden


 * Mark - Wikipedia is NOT and NEVER has been intended to "cover everything". Please read WP:NOT. Like many new editors, you think that just saying "honest guv, it will improve, he's a decent bloke" covers it, it does not. There is one very straight forward and simple way for you to save your article - you need to provide sources from verfiable third-party media (such as a newspaper, magazine) that talks about your work and it's importance. That would stop the AFD in it's tracks, so if you want to save the article that's what you need to do. If that material does not appear by the end of this AFD process (which is about five days), this article will be deleted. Oh and "What about article X?" arguments NEVER work - all that happens is that you draw attention to them and people like me AFD them or try and clean them up. A crap article will not survive because you can point to 3 other crap articles. --Larry laptop 17:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I said before that the article was not written by the subject. I am not Mark. The fact that you and your fellow Wikipedia editors/moderators/police (I don't know what you prefer to be called) haven't heard of Mark Venturi is no reason to believe that nobody else has.

I wasn't attempting to draw attention to "3 other crap articles", and I don't believe I did. I'm not someone who likes to reports my peers to the teacher. And I actually think there are many more than three articles in this encyclopedia that would meet your definition of word crap, which seems to be 'not being thoroughly referenced'. It was helpful of you to link me to WP:NOT, though I did read it before I contributed. Very early on in that article it says "there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover". With that in mind I'm surprised by the eagerness to delete the Venturi article. Having the tag there makes it clear to readers that the article isn't currently meeting the Wikipedia standards, and that there is a debate going on whether it should even exist. Jung Dresden


 * You are wasting your time with this line of reasoning - The article requires sources from independent 3rd party sources if it is to survive - that's the start, middle and end of it. No amount of pleading is going to change fundemental wikipedia policy. It's also a red herring to say "you haven't heard of him", what matters is that you can show he's notable via sources. I've had a look this morning, there are no sources - he's a nobody in Wikipedia terms. --Larry laptop 18:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Why doesn't Ducktape count as a source? Much of the information in the article can be found on that site. Jung Dresden


 * A source for what? that Mark Venturi exists or that he is a notable film-maker? I think we all accept that he exists (which is always a good start). The information contained on that site just indicates that he made two short-films. So the next element is - so what? Lots of people have made short films, What's notable about those? have their won awards? Been the subject of notable newspapers and magazines? Any of that? All the ducktape site tells us is that those films exist. Do you understand what I'm getting at? Something existing is not enought to include on here.  --Larry laptop 17:35, 15 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.