Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Hundred Thousand Hearts


 * 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. There's no doubt about the consensus here but the behavior of a few of the participants here toward the article's creator was uncalled for. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

One Hundred Thousand Hearts

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Delete article reads like an advertisement and has been proded a number of times by different users. article author has not significantly improved the article before removing prod tags. content bears striking resemblance to many of its sources none of which appear to meet WP:RS or indicate WP:NOTE beyond local coverage. article author has also referred to themself as "I" in edit summaries, denoting a probable WP:COI. WookieInHeat (talk) 02:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:Notability (films). 69.181.249.92 (talk) 03:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

We brought in a professional writer and did a complete rewrite from the original post. Any unintended advertisement was removed and notability has been thoroughly supported. Please review the new posting. We respectfully object to this page being deleted. Please refer to Wikipedia post http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicko which is an excellent example of an accepted documentary post on Wikipedia. Thank you. O1huthhes (talk) 04:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

We also respectfully note to Administrators that according to "Before nominating a page for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved", we were not given a chance by the editors who want us deleted to improve the post. We logged on and found the deletion notice this evening, and began to follow all of the Wikipedia advice immediately. When we began to edit the pages and removed the deletion notice, as instructed, a Speedy Deletion notice appeared instantaneously. We called over a professional writer, who has worked on this and it has improved dramatically and significantly. We have done all of this in the space of the past few hours. And according to "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." This is a brand-new documentary. There are no other articles on it, we checked. O1huthhes (talk) 04:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

We submit the Houston Chronicle newspaper as a third party source, and Houston Pet Talk Magazine as a third party source, and Houston Dog Blog as a third party source, and these are linked on the page under Media. Why did the editors miss this? We have a trailer of the film at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMuu9GHdlto We also found this on notability: 'A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in any of the subject-specific guidelines listed in the box on the right.' Films. We meet those criteria. We also found this on notability "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." A press release in Houston's largest pet magazine is not a trivial mention so we pass this test of notability. And on the concern that it was an advertisement, that was just Poor Writing and nothing blatant, and according to Wikipedia policy, we are allowed to rewrite and re-edit. So the seeming two editors that want us deleted are Not following Wikipedia's own "Before nominating a page for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved" policy. And lastly, the editor objecting to the use of the word "I" in typing, that is just human. How many people can fit at a keyboard? One. We have a several people here, reading, researching, trying to abide by Wikipedia rules, while it seems the editors themselves are not doing so, by giving us no time to rewrite or re-edit before suggesting a Speedy Deletion. This documentary is as valid an entry as Michael Moore's Sicko, but we are a not-for-profit endeavor with this documentary. To the Administrators who will make the decision, please look at the time line that this has occured in this day. We rewrote it as fast as we could. Thank you. O1huthhes (talk) 05:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't miss those, but they don't satisfy the notability criteria for films. And wiki-lawyering about process isn't going to change the merits of the article. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 05:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong DELETE. Violates WP:RS, WP:COI, WP:Single-purpose account, and many other policies.  This is a thoroughly insignificant, non-notable film, and the people who made it aren't even trying to hide the fact that they're trying to manipulate their way to notability by writing an article about their own project!  However, this one laughable line from the article tells you everything you need to know about how insignificant this movie is: "One Hundred Thousand Hearts premiered on September 26, 2010 at the main branch of the downtown Houston Public Library, 4th floor theater."  Wow.  I am so impressed. Qworty (talk) 05:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia says "It is impossible for a newcomer to be completely familiar with all of the policies, guidelines, and community standards of Wikipedia before they start editing . . . In fact, it has been found that newcomers are responsible for adding the majority of lasting content to Wikipedia"  We aren't sure what "wiki-lawyering" is that you called us, but in the Wikipedia guidelines, it says that we should support our statements with the guidelines. "Please do not bite the newcomers" We are newcomers, and we are working very hard to do what it takes to correct our page. It's 1am and we all have to go to work. So if you have not succeeded in having us deleted by tomorrow, we will return with more evidence that we are legitimate and deserve to have this small page in Wikipedia. O1huthhes (talk) 05:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

And again, Wikipedia says "do not slam the newcomer. Remember, this is a place where anyone may edit and therefore it is in every sense each person's responsibility to edit, rather than to criticize or supervise others. Do not use bad manners or swear at newcomers, or they may not want to contribute to this website again" Why would you ridicule us? What power do you want to have by being rude? We have nothing to hide. This event was a piece of history in Houston, and you laugh at the library theater, have you been there and seen how many people it seats? I hope the Administrators of Wikipedia are more polite than the couple of editors who have written here. We will continue tomorrow. O1huthhes (talk) 06:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. You can come back here every day until the discussion closes and post thousands of words about yourselves, but the fact is that your film fails WP:Notability (films).  No amount of typing in this space on your part is going to change that fact.  So spin your wheels all you want. Qworty (talk) 06:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia says: "The general guideline for notability shared by most of the subject-specific notability guidelines and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, is that: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." We will bring this. Since we are human and must rest and go to work, we will return at a later time. And that is not spinning our wheels. We had no idea that editors were allowed to be so rude. Why would editors, given the privilege of editing, not make constructive remarks, help, and build up? Instead of tear down, ridicule, and make fun of. I doubt that is the intention of Wikipedia. Good night.O1huthhes (talk) 06:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately you set the tone by complaining about the process, and by extension those who followed the process. But back to the reason this page exists - to evaluate the article. I don't feel it passes the criteria laid out in WP:Notability (films). Can you point to evidence that it meets any of the five general principles or other evidence of notability? 'Cause I ain't seein' it. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 08:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

We have never complained about the process. We have pointed out that the editors were having bad manners, which is against Wikipedia standards. . . "Do not use bad manners or swear at newcomers, [etc]" 67.65.165.11 (talk) 09:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP:NF, WP:COI. No evidence this is notable outside the local area. Redfarmer (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Redfarmer, for your professionalism. It is appreciated, and much easier to deal with than bad manners. Euthanasia is a serious problem across the entire country http://www.americanhumane.org/about-us/newsroom/fact-sheets/animal-shelter-euthanasia.html To say it is of local interest would be like saying that the only place where health care problems exist, was where Michael Moore filmed. We filmed in the city that has the highest euthanasia rate per capita of any city in America. O1huthhes (talk) 10:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you to TheTito for your professionalism. I do not have a shared account, I have a professional writer came over to help re-write the original post. I had two friends via skype looking up Wikipedia data to help solve and understand the problems and issues I've been told are wrong. I started out using the pronoun "I" and an earlier editor suggested I was SPA because I used the word "I" So I started using "we", not knowing what proper protocol. I'm simply new and trying to learn quickly and do things correctly. I sure appreciate seeing you and Redfarmer here, I was beginning to think all editors were allowed to ridicule and have bad manners with no consequences. Are there consequences for bad manners?

"Shared account I noticed on your comments in the deletion discussion of One Hundred Thousand Hearts you repeatedly used the pronoun we. If you are sharing an account, please stop as it is a violation of username policy. If you not sharing an account, kindly disregard this message. Thanks. TheTito Discuss 09:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)"


 * The problem is that while the issue of euthanasia is certainly notable, the film itself is not. I strongly urge you to read the notability guidelines at Notability (films), which are the criteria the article will ultimately be judged on. In short, the film must be widely distributed and received reviews from at least two nationally known critics, be historically significant, received a major industry award, be selected for preservation in a national archive, or the film itself be taught as part of an accredited university's film program. Your film does not appear currently to satisfy those criteria. Plus the apparent conflict of interest and continued insinuations that you're having a professional writer help you rewrite the article are troubling, as they represent direct violations of Wikipedia editing guidelines. Redfarmer (talk) 10:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete "We brought in a professional writer" - quite often not a good idea on Wikipedia. Still, it's your money... (Disclaimer: I am a writer, but do all my work here on Wikipedia for free.) Anyway, very non-notable film, and at two hours I can't see this subject being viewed by the unconverted very much. The three references given in the article are no help. None of them even mention the film - and the Wikipedia one is not a reliable source WP:RS. I do wish the film success (even though I can't see it happening) and would be quite happy for a return of an article on the subject if it does achieve more than it seems to have so far. Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and also that notability is often not achieved overnight (or even in three weeks...). If it does come back, read the policies, get the references that do more than just mention the film in passing, ask an editor with a good list of contributions for advice - and don't waste money on outside writers. We'll tidy things up if needed. (Some of the 'professionally written' things I've seen here have been amongst the lowest level writing I've seen outside schools. This is written well enough, but is far too long and detailed - and a bit soapboxy WP:SOAPBOX. Peridon (talk) 10:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, SPA means Single Purpose Account - one created for one purpose only (which is usually promotional or to try to hide multiple voting). All accounts should be Single Person (OK, married ones too, but each partner should have their own account...) and not be joint or company run. There are no objections to accounts being single purpose for genuine editing. There are objections to accounts being corporate. To all this, the principle of Conflict of Interest WP:COI applies. Articles ideally are 'about', not 'by'. It is hard to stick to WP:NPOV (neutral point of view) when you are very close to a subject. Peridon (talk) 10:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Peridon. That input is helpful. The term professional writer was misused on my part, it was my neighbor who tutors kids in school that I dragged out of bed to help me understand "a neutral perspective" and "no advertising" and all the other parameters. And she abandoned me hours ago. I wrote it myself and she helped by explaining things to me. I am the only user on the account. O1huthhes (talk) 11:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

To Redfarmer, thank you for your concern about COI, and I did re-read those links. Regarding COI, "A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor." My aim *was* to write a proper article, and a neutral article, and a reliable source. So there was no conflict of interest. And I tried my best to do that. Through your effort and Peridon's effort, I see the irreconcilable flaw, and I just wish I had simply waited to post the article for after the documentary goes on television in Nov/Dec. I jumped the gun. Live and Learn. Monday morning Quarterbacking. Thank you, Peridon, for your feedback, very helpful. And if anyone else feels the need to be rude or have bad manners, could you just let it go? I concede. Delete at will. Thank you O1huthhes (talk) 12:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete not a notable film (premiered at a public-use room at a library? come on.) It isn't even on IMDB.  And the self-promotion/COI/SPAM issues are impossible to ignore. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - I've reverted an attempt at blanking by O1huthhes. The article is part of Wikipedia and not a personally-sponsored marketing piece and needs to be kept or deleted through normal channels. I have no opinion as to notability of the film and wish the filmmaker the best. —Carrite, Oct. 8, 2010.
 * For what it's worth, the Houston Public Library says they don't have a theatre on the 4th floor (or anywhere else) but they do have meeting rooms. I doubt that's going to have any big impact on the AFD at present, but I figured I'd get it out there in the interest of accuracy. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * From their website,, their largest room has a capacity of 132 persons. There are theaters that small, even movie theaters that small, and I suppose if a  a community meeting room is used to show a  movie, you could call it a movie theater for the time being. "We used their meeting room ads a theater" is a perfectly plausible sentence. But writing it the way this article does in an indication of promotionalism.  DGG ( talk )   20:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * delete, possibly speedy as a G11 promotional aarticlethat would require fundamental rewriting. The only reason I'm not doing it right now  is that RHaworth reviewed it initially ,and prodded it instead. I generally delete articles like this when I encounter them at speedy; I have been known to rewrite them, but there's a limited number I can do (like one a day, maybe) so I only do it  if the subject is really important and there are reasonably good sources to use for the rewriting. This is not anywhere near important enough that I would do it when there are so many much more important subjects that need articles. there's no reason to think it notable -- there is no attention whatsoever outside of Houston pet circles. The sources are inadequate to show notability . The Houston Chronicle one is a fake--it's a personal blog liked to from the newspaper's pets section,  and carries this disclaimer "NOTE: Our members are responsible for this content, which is not edited by the Chronicle"  The other ones are not just special inters sources, which would indeed be OK, nor just local, which can be OK, but  local special interest sources, which cannot be used for notability, since they;ll typically publicize anything relevant, regardless of importance. They  serve an important function, which is the exchange of local specialized information--but that's about at the opposite end of the spectrum from a world-wide general encyclopedia. Now, the rewritten article is still promotional: excessive detail, general discussion of the importance of the topic the film is about rather than the topic of the film, using as many names as possible and using full titles every time, appeals to the reader,  such as "The film also focuses on what individuals can do to help make a difference in their communities," and general claims of good intentions "formed by a group of attorneys who loved animals and wanted to make a difference", and PR jargon, such as "wanted to make a difference" , "focuses on" " 'ordinary' people" (their quotes for ordinary), and incorporation of external links to various local people and websites within the text.  Part of the reason it is unsuitable is that it was done by professional writers. I have seen  professional public relations  people write good articles about their clients for Wikipedia. I have not seen many. It requires a different way of writing--a different mind set. They may be very skilled people, but they do as poorly at it as we would do in trying to write advertising copy.  (when we need PR ourself, the way we do it is to hire people who know how, not rely on our own incompetent efforts.)  The reason we discourage COI and especially paid writing is because so much of it is awful. The reason we do not actually ban it  absolutely is that it can sometimes be done right. If the film becomes important, which is always possible, I hope someone will who is not too closely involved will write a proper article about it.    DGG ( talk ) 20:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy for the page to come down, that is why I tried to delete it. If that is not proper channels, then time will take care of it. In the defense of TRUTH, the Houston Public Library 4th floor seats 250 people. If you do not believe that, call them and ask: 832-393-1300  The room was called a theater to me by the employees, that is how they referred to it and I never thought to call it differently. And I did not pay anyone to write the page, as I said earlier, the "professional writer" is my neighbor who tutors kids at school in writing. I say professional because she is paid for her job, and I say writer because that is what she does. I was trying to understand what to do, to improve it. I was trying to show you that I was taking your criticism seriously. I find it odd that someone would spend so much time writing here, and yet say they have no time to write to improve the points of the article that they do not like. I don't think one person here has tried to improve the article. Regarding Notability for a Film, a film has five years to achieve that according to Wikipedia standards, and it only has to achieve ONE of those standards, not all of them. So, please, delete the page. Be happy. I am. Go spend your time helping someone make their articles better. The film was only released 13 days ago. I accept responsibility that I did not truly understand what Wikipedia "was" and "was not" and I learned the hard way. I will take that and grow from it. There is no evil plot to take over the world or Wikipedia. It was sheer human error, plain and simple. You can trust and believe me that I will NEVER submit another article to this place again. Someone else can do it. I intend to take this experience, and go quietly into simply editing other people's pages, and constructively help them with their grammar, links and punctuation. The only thing anyone here did was criticize, no one edited. You could have helped make it a better article, but I acknowledge you could not do anything about the Notability issue. O1huthhes (talk) 03:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

And btw: The REASON we had the opening at the Houston Public Library is because it was the only place that would let people in for Free. We did not want anyone to be charged. I guess in these days and times, it might be difficult to believe that there are a few good people trying to do something good in this world. O1huthhes (talk) 04:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Good bye !! O1huthhes (talk) 04:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No worries, friend. As you have discovered, there are quite a few people that take the Wikipedia project very seriously (perhaps TOO seriously, it may be argued) and there very definitely are lines of demarcation as to what the project is and is not. Seriously, good luck with your filmmaking and no hard feelings. —Carrite, Oct. 8, 2010.
 * As for the additional editing, this really isn't the place for that. Speaking for myself, once in a while a challenge will move me to spend research time on the article in question, but basically this is a place where the inclusion-worthiness of a given article is discussed and decided; we're not here to fix anything, only to make the call on whether a subject clears or does not clear the established standards for inclusion. Sometimes the standards are a little screwy and hard to understand, but that's the way it is. Best, — Tim Carrite, Oct. 8, 2010.

Comment on article author just wanted to commend O1huthhes for his/her civil manner in the face of peoples somewhat brash comments about their personal writing. it can be hard to maintain composure under such coldly objective critique but you took it in stride. and thanks for your efforts in understanding wiki policy. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 06:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2010 (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.