Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poison In The Grapes


 * 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 speedy Delete. Procedural close, page was deleted per CSD G5. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 18:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Poison In The Grapes

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable film lacking non-trivial support. Fails WP:NOTFILM. red dogsix (talk) 03:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment - Wikipedia has been trashing this poor guys name and career for years. The article is accurately sourced and meets requirements for notability. on a side note, the film is about how the local media refused to write about the subject matter which explains why there are not more sources for this extremely successful local film release. Please, for once, take the time to do some research before you delete on principle alone. Jacobsladderrack (talk) 04:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Nominating an article for deletion is hardly "trashing" of anything. The article is far from adequately sourced - the references do not even mention the article subject. The links that do mention the article are not independent. I find nothing in the article that supports notability. Concerning your side note, if the article lacks references, then simply put, it is not notable.   red dogsix (talk) 14:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment From the first article cited: "Matthew Berdyck produced his own documentary on the subject." The article also refers to and points directly at the link to the short film on YouTube," and is completely independent of the original source.  Your deletion request, and statements regarding the deletion, are baseless and without merit.  User Hellinabucket can be found on previous deletion articles stating, "I would argue for its inclusion based on notability alone." As can be seen on other talk pages about Mr. Berdyck, previous deletions have caused damage to Matthew's reputation as a national activist.  The matter was resolved privately between Berdyck and Wikimedia Foundation, it appears.4.35.244.54 (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment The first "reference" is far from non-trivial. A link and a brief mention does not qualify as in-depth.  I think you have this a little backwards, your statement of notability is lacking in merit.  If you feel it does have merit, please provide what part of WP:NOTFILM the film meets.  Please keep in mind that, "To presume notability, reliable sources should have significant coverage."    As far as the comment by Hellinabucket, I have no context for the statement, so I cannot comment on it.  The comments about Berdyck are irrelevant to this discussion and AfD - and do not interest me.

Comment I feel that Wikipedians are directly trying to prevent Mr. Berdyck from obtaining an article. I submit as evidence this article, about another Superfund site, which has no sourcing other than its own website and an Imdb. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_Creek_(film). 330763Time (talk) 02:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Rather than look at this as an adversarial discussion, I suggest you use this as an opportunity to improve the article.  It appears you, unlike myself, have a vested interest in resolution of the AfD.  I am more than willing to support inclusion if the criteria for inclusion can be met, but as yet, I see nothing that support this.  red dogsix (talk) 17:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment' It bothers me that you are trying to paint me as "adversarial" when I am simply stating facts. That seems manipulative and bating.  Your judgments of this debate as "adversarial" raise into question your judgments on this article, and every other article you've contributed to.  I have noted that you are also one of the editors who was involved in the previous incident involving Mr. Berdyck and that your opinion is colored, biased, and has no place in this discussion.  The ABC News piece was created entirely out information from Poison in the Grapes. Thank you in the least "adversarial" way possible.  4.35.244.54 (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - As I indicated Berdyck is not relevant in this discussion - I don't even know who he is or have any idea of what you are referring to when you state I was involved in a discussion with him. With over 33K edits to my account, this does not surprise me.  I find it interesting you are concerned by my use of the word adversarial, but you are quick to tell me my "opinion is colored, biased, and has no place in this discussion."  I would suggest you read WP:CIVIL, I will do the same, and that we both focus on the issue at hand.


 * The bottom line simply put is the article presents no evidence of notability. Again, I ask you to please provide what part of WP:NOTFILM the film meets.  All the  rest of the comments are unimportant in the AfD. Provide some support for the article or it will not survive.  Again, if the article lacks references, then simply put, it is not notable - regardless of the reason.   red dogsix</i> (talk) 18:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Right now, neither the film nor Matthew Berdyck seems to meet our basic notability requirements so I'd say delete -- even though I'm quite interested in the film's subject matter, myself. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, this is Matthew Berdyck. This is now the second time that someone has started an article on this subject.

The first time someone wrote an article about me. Wiki editors focused on the section of the article about Poison in the Grapes, saying that I needed a third party sourcing.

It took me over six months and cost me several thousand dollars to fly to Akron in order to get this article written. The reference provided above is two pieces of content. There is a news article and a TV news piece embedded in that first citation, which is significant coverage.

The news piece was also released on NBC National and published by The Barberton Herald. Your editors have backed me into a corner because I'm the only person who knows all of this info and can provide the sourcing.

I don't know what to do here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.164.25 (talk) 23:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Your comment raises a number of questions in my mind but I'll put those aside, stick to the salient point, and say that notability of a superfund site -- we have many such articles -- doesn't mean a film about such a site is automatically notable. It still has to meet WP:NFILM. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Let me answer those questions. What is happening here is that after a half a million miles I have made myself grass roots famous by exposing Superfund sites, working the same field as Erin Brockovich, in many of the same cities, including Hinkley. My efforts in Boyd County Kentucky just helped to stop Chris Christie from running the New Jersey garbage train that dumped 45 million tons of garbage into the Big Run Landfill, saving an entire town in the process. If I want media I can have media. This is all going to back fire on you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.164.33 (talk) 01:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - In the Wikipedia world, an unsupported statement is just that and certainly worth less than the paper or is written on. If you cannot provide support, the article will be removed as a result of the AfD.  I don't know what you mean by, "All this is going to back fire {sic} on you."  Are you threatening the editor?  red <b style="color:#000;">dog</b><i style="color:#000;">six</i> (talk) 02:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Poison in the Grapes is the first short film about a Superfund site to get national media attention, in film history, of two that have been made. The first was a TV broadcast that was never formally released. Matthew Berdyck is the man who exposed the Superfund project.  Before he came along, no one in 40 years had written about Superfund sites as a national health issue.  Today, everyone from National Geographic to Erin Brockovich are using his research and information. 330763Time (talk) 02:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I submit this article about a Superfund film with no sourcing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_Creek_(film) 330763Time (talk) 02:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * see WP:OTHERCRAP. -- dsprc   [talk]  02:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: Fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:NFILM; nothing on Google Scholar for either work or director (as opposed to say, John Pilger and his Cambodia documentary, for example). Has no awards, recognition, nor run in major festivals etc. Fails a basic Google test (all SEO, nothing independent) so claim of "get national media attention" falls flat at best. I'm sure the COI IP thinks they're important, too bad no one else seems to share the sentiment and that's why there is no  coverage for the work. Wikipedia in an encyclopedia with inclusion criteria, this fails to meet even the most basic of them. As for what seems like a THREAT and WIKIBULLYING to get their way with "If I want media I can have media.  This is all going to back fire on you.": be my guest. I  hearing about myself; make sure to mention me by name. ;) But it will most likely not end the way you think it will (and if there was actual media coverage, the point would be moot anyway). --  dsprc   [talk]  02:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I think what Matthew meant when he said, "this is going to end poorly for you," is that he has a release going on in LA on 9/23, to 2.1 million people to expose the plume of TCE under Google's Annex building in Mountain View and the cancer cluster in the near vicinity that is being investigated by The State of California. There is a fully funded media and marketing campaign behind the release which will generate hundreds of articles and attention to this talk page which is filled with insults against a man who does nothing but help people.   While he might not be on Google scholar, his work and career are paid for by Google employees.  Saying, "If I want media I can get media" is not a threat.  Your argument that a man who refuses to do media is somehow looking to hear his name is ignorant. http://imgur.com/g6idj9x 330763Time (talk) 02:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not some WP:CRYSTALBALL were we posit what happen in the future, so  it gets significant coverage then subject would be fine for inclusion. Right now it is WP:TOOSOON. I'm sure there is a marketing campaign behind the release, and behaviour in this discussion leads me to believe Wikipedia article is part of that. If they're not on Google Scholar, and have no significant coverage, then they're not notable (WP:Notability) enough to write about here. Please see WP:GNG, WP:Introduction etc. This discussion is if the subject of this Wikipedia article meets the criteria for inclusion, not your personal opinions on how important you think the subject is. We only care about the opinions of independent WP:THIRDPARTY Reliable sources.  --  dsprc   [talk]  03:15, 12 September 2015

The insults. Oh my. How about that I don't submit my films to festivals because I don't care about winning worthless awards? How about the fact that I have never attempted to submit a film to festivals because I'm an activist more focused on education rather than pointless screenings that will change nothing? I don't even use SEO and I avoid media like the plague because I don't do this for attention. As far as no one sharing the sentiment what do you call the 25,000 residents of Boyd County?

I'm getting shit on for being a humble person. Unfuckingbelievable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.164.57 (talk)

Because of the previous incident I am connected to ten executives at Wikimedia, on LinkedIn, now. I provided an article about a Superfund site that has zero citations which is currently active. My article has four and its being deleted. My statements are being vandalized. Let's take this all the way to the top and let them review your actions.

Have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.164.41 (talk)


 * Wikipedia is a self organizing, user-run, collaborative project; you can spam Wikimedia Foundation all you wish but it won't help your article to stay published and is a waste of time. A better use of time would be to improve the article instead of all this junk here (see: WP:HEY). I struck your comments as they're detrimental to this discussion and are uncivil. IF you wish to report my behaviour as suspected WP:VANDALISM, then WP:AIV is the proper venue for such actions (additionally, there are a number of other links provided at the top of my user page which one may find helpful in navigating the bureaucracy, and my Talk page is open should other assistance be needed). You are of course free to take all the WP:ROPE you require, however. Namaste. -- dsprc   [talk]  03:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment Dsprc is doing the exact same thing that happened to Mr Berdyck last time. This is an article about the short film Poison in the Grapes which received national coverage via NBC Universal, and local ABC News, and Barberton Herald. Dsprc is shifting the focus to Matthew who has never claim to be notable, at any time. The repeated insults are meant to bully and disrupt the conversation. Whether Matthew is notable or not has nothing to do with this discussion. 330763Time (talk) 03:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - the only bullying I see is directed at Dsprc not from him. No one cares who one knows or how many LinkedIn contacts one has.  Before we digress into comments about the lizards ruling the world lets focus back on the notability of the article.  red <b style="color:#000;">dog</b><i style="color:#000;">six</i> (talk) 03:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Please try to concentrate on content, not contributors. My focus is purely this documentary listed for discussion. The "media coverage" are less than a handful of passing mentions as best; Wikipedia doesn't do mentions. I have peppered my statements with numerous links to policies, guidelines and general essays which you are most encouraged to review, as you seem to misunderstand the purpose of this discussion. These AfD are usually open for 7 days, so you are encouraged to spend that time improving the article (WP:HEY) by including more citations to reliable sources to support the assertion of significance. I've said all I can and will not respond any further. Namaste. --  dsprc   [talk]  03:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Alts:
 * type:
 * year:
 * filmmaker:


 * Delete for failing WP:NF. I have no pony in this race. The 15-minute documentary exists and can be watched and does relate to a superfund site and public safety issues in Akron, the film was mentioned and filmmaker did speak up on WEWS News Channel 5 in Cleveland, but sorry Matthew... Wikipedia is not an ADVOCATE of even the worst situations even if its editors may have cause to be alarmed at government irresposibility, but a short documentary film has problems when it is not covered more widely in what Wikipedia considers reliable sources.  While the film itself fails inclusion guidelines, the situation at the site itself is sourcable and has recived coverage, so perhaps it can be redirected someplace where it can be mentioned?  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 03:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment Matthew is not the editor. I am. This is a serious issue and I would like to know where I can go to address this, or where Matthew can go. Every time over the last two years that someone has tried to create an article about Matthew's work, which goes back many more years than just advocacy, as he also created two TV shows for Adult Swim, the talk page devolves into insults and ridiculous treatment of a man that wasn't even in the room. The last time, six different editors attacked what they though was him until he later provided evidence that he was in The Everglades with no internet access. It's the same people, too. But, I did take the time to add that source to other articles and Wikipedia editors are deleting the source with the word "irrelevant." This is a witch hunt. 330763Time (talk) 04:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:DR, please. red <b style="color:#000;">dog</b><i style="color:#000;">six</i> (talk) 04:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Dsprc did it again. The same thing. He came here, disrupted the article by saying I am not notable, when the article is on another subject, and then tells me to focus on content not contributors, when it was him that derailed the conversation to begin with. 330673Talk is correct. I would like to know who I need to talk to to get this user to stop dragging me into things I have no part of.  In my career people are going to try to create articles.  I do not deserve to be personally attacked every time that happens.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.164.33 (talk) 04:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:DR, please. red <b style="color:#000;">dog</b><i style="color:#000;">six</i> (talk) 04:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't need to spam Wikimedia. I live in Mountain View. There are Wikimedia execs that live in my building.

comment The old saying goes, "Location, location, location." 330763Time (talk) 04:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Seriously. One time some forum admin for Adobe.com was harassing the shit out of me not being aware that I ride the Caltrain with Adobe Corp people every day. They, also live in my neighborhood along with Wikimedia peeps. It's a simple matter of walking up to your neighbor and saying do you see this crap? Silicon Valley is a very small place and we all ride The Caltrain together. Never saw that admin again, and Adobe personally invited me to their headquarters the next day. Namaste.


 * Delete and salt. I can't find enough out there to show that this film would pass notability guidelines. As far as the claims here go, I'd recommend against making accusations of harassment since I really can't see where these claims are founded. I also doubt very seriously that Wikimedia will step in here and keep this article, especially given the WP:ADHOMINEM attacks made here against various editors. That it's implied (albeit not outright stated) that they'll do this because you live in a building with several of them doesn't really help you either. Basically, at this point you're doing more to discredit the film and its director than anything else. It also comes across as incredibly unprofessional on his side. As someone who came in here without knowing anything about the director or film, this gives more credence to RedDogSix's claims of non-notability than anything else. It's very, very rare that a notable film or person would have to come into an article and resort to the actions done here. I'd like to ask that you please stop. This AfD will be part of a permanent record on Wikipedia that random people will have the ability to view. A potential investor coming in to look at the director's history will not be impressed by this. Also, I have to point out the irony in the last few fairly abusive posts in response to Schmidt's delete argument. He's probably one of the biggest inclusionists (not that this is a bad thing, mind you) on Wikipedia and will argue vociferously for many articles. For him to argue for deletion is a very, very strong statement towards the film's lack of notability per Wikipedia's guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, please avoid arguments that center around the existence of other articles. The existence of a poorly sourced article does not mean that another poorly sourced article should remain. Sometimes these topics are notable and just haven't been properly sourced (as in the case of Tar Creek), but in most cases they just haven't been found and deleted yet. Either way, mentioning the other articles will have no weight here and a better course of action would be to look for sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I should also mention that if you continue to act abusively you run the risk of getting blocked from editing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've opened up an SPI here since it looks fairly likely that this is Middleamericajames fulfilling their promise from last year that they'd make new sockpuppet accounts. It looks like this wasn't the first time this film has been the focus of attention on Wikipedia, as it was the focus of an ANI thread back in March 2014. I also recommend salting this, since there's reason to believe that they will try to recreate the page later on down the line. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Jacobsladderrack and 330763Time are ✅ socks.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Suggest immediate speedy deletion WP:CSD as an article created by the socks of a master in an an attempt to circumvet his block. I have just tagged the article. Schmidt,  Michael Q. 14:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt. This 15 minute YouTube film comprehensively fails both the General Notability Guidelines and the alternative criteria WP:FILM. Whether it is speedy deleted of deleted per this discussion, the title needs to be salted as was Matthew Berdyck. For background see this, this, and this. Voceditenore (talk) 17:49, 12 September 2015 (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.