Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massage For Relaxation, An Instructional Video


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Massage For Relaxation, An Instructional Video

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Self-promotional article about a commercial video, just barely scraping by a WP:CSD#G11 speedy. No apparent signs of notability, no independent coverage except routine commercial reviews and endorsements (of which the author has collected as many as she could, not for their information value but to bolster her case against deletion). Sole author of the page is the author of the video. PROD was removed by author. Bringing this here to ensure at least some additional pairs of eyes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * How is a film called "Klunkerz" more notable than "Massage For Relaxation?" I would appreciate any constructive criticism in regards to my entry. Thank you. Pattymooney (talk) 19:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Your sourcing seems almost adequate, specially if one removes those that are not in reliable sources. But to answer your questions: First, there is a grave concern when a user account "Pattymooney" writes articles about the projects of Patricia Mooney. See WP:COI and WP:PROMOTION. Seccond, because of this concern Wikipedia has an even geater worry about any article seemingly set to advertise a product. See the closely related WP:NOTADVERTISING.  With respects however, and though I think these two serious concerns may have doomed the article, I will myself attempt to clean up the article style, sense of advert, and neutralize the article's POV.  My efforts may not result in the article being kept, but I invite you to observe them as they are made and note what I do and the why listed in my edit summaries.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)



 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete for failing WP:GNG. nothing in gnews. LibStar (talk) 07:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, / ƒETCH COMMS  /  18:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep and continue cleanup. Yes, the article needs more work, but finding "g-news" sources about a pre-internet special-interest documentary on massage will not be as helpful as a search at my local library for hardcopy sources and books. It can certainly be sent to AFD again if Nexus Magazine and Billboard Magazine are not improved upon.  As the author has COI, userfication is problematic, but I would not be adverse to its being incubated for continued work.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Update: Not finished, but beginning to look better. What was reasonably nominated as overly promotional with author's COI, is looking better than it did. I had cautioned the author of COI, and as a result, she has not edited it since March 7... and my additonal work addressed those edits. Not perfect yet, but better than it was.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I take that back. She did not listen. Sorry.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 10:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Edit now dealt with, and information placed in another more suitable article. Author's edit was in good faith, but she has promised to back away.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: If kept, this will require a move to its proper and sourcable name of simply Massage For Relaxation.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep given the awards and reviews. Pburka (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete This is the video equivalent of a self-published book. The one "award" is unimpressive, as are the non-mainstream "reviews".--MelanieN (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The film was created at a time when home video market was filled only with big-budget studio mainstream films, and Betamax and VHS were video formats fighting for supremacy. Yes, the internet has made available numerous self-published "books"... but this film was created 26 years ago... in pre-internet 1985, when all such direct to video self-help films were made by independent filmmakers.  So we need to consider what it was for when it was.  While big studios were understandably pandering home sales of their blockbuster films, their marketing departmants were only just beginning to consider the possibilities inherent with lower cost, direct-to-video films... and they had not yet even begun to consider the home video market for self-help instructional videos.  That mainstream reviewers were spending their time speaking toward the various major studio video releases of mainstream box office hits is thus understandable.  So we might then reasonably look toward those reviewers who critiqued videos intended for the smaller demographic.  Though their dollars do speak louder, should we fall prey to the major studios ability to generate press coverage through wider release and greater advertising budgets?  Minimal notability established as being among (if not THE) the first of its kind should be acceptable to Wikipedia.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Tentative keep. I'm keep at the moment, but am open to being convinced otherwise.  The coverage/award is the primary reason, though I'm also taking notice of the fact that this is among the first of its kind.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The article now contains reviews of it found in reliable sources.  D r e a m Focus  04:35, 27 March 2011 (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.