Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rogue filmmaker


 * 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. § FreeRangeFrog croak 02:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Rogue filmmaker

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I boldly redirected this article, but that got reverted. So, here we are. This is an essay about a commonplace phrase that has no specific notability (or definition) of its own. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable, seems to be a neologism. It has a few hits on Google, but not anything reliable nor anywhere near enough to justify an article or merge. I'm not opposed to a redirect, but this seems like an incredible obscure synonym for guerrilla filmmaking. Under redirect policy, redirects that are "a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name" should not be created. However, if the phrase is actually common as the nom claims, then it should be redirected. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect - I don't think the nominator meant "commonplace" as in, "commonly used", I think he meant "not unique" and not notable enough to warrant stand-alone inclusion. I agree. Stalwart 111  09:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. It's about as common as any other random combination of adjective + noun, and it describes no specific movement or ideology. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, I think we're all on the same page. I'm removing the redirect suggestion from my comment. The contention (even from the supporters) is that these things are not synonymous. That means we shouldn't have a redirect. But it doesn't mean that the subject is notable enough for inclusion. Favour"regular" deletion unless someone can provide some evidence that it is in any way notable. Stalwart 111  05:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - When the University of San Francisco offers a specific course on Rogue Filmmakers and famed Hollywood director, Werner Herzog, started a school to specifically teach the Rogue Filmmaker style, the term Rogue Filmmaker warrants a place on Wikipedia. filmstar213 (talk)


 * Delete While these two words make a sometimes used phrase, there is not a consistent meaning to it. For instance the USF course looks at innovators such as Alfred Hitchcock and Woody Allen who worked within the system, not the outsiders and "guerrillas" the article focuses on. A redirect to Guerrilla filmmaking would not be correct. Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Rogue Filmmaker is not the same thing as Guerilla Filmmaking. Unlike Guerilla Filmmaking whose intent is to simply create low budget films using innovavion to replace costly equipment or cheating shots, Rogue Filmmaking is a direct challenge to the Studio System with the creation of high quality content using a larger pool of resources. Rogue Filmmakers utilize all resources including comparable budgets to Studios and also may employ Guerilla Tactics if needed to supplement. Rogue Filmmaking is most commonly seen with intermediate professional filmmakers who have spent time within the Studio System and thus go Rogue outside the Studio System to produce comparable quality content. Rogue Cinema does not qualify as simply independent because it may utilize Big Studio Resources as well as Indi Resources Combined. The most classic example of a Rogue Filmmaker was Charlie Chaplin who stepped outside of the Major Studios to create Charlie Chaplin Studios and partner with First National which was considered a Rogue company working against Paramount Pictures. RoguelIndoconsortium (talk)
 * — Indoconsortium (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Do you have any reliable sources backing up these claims? If not, the claims are just original research. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete term is not in general usage. If, somtime in the future, it does become a common term the article can be resurrected. MarnetteD | Talk 21:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep This term is widely used by filmmakers, especially in Hollywood and Los Angeles, and I think there is some confusion by non-industry insiders. Originally, an independent film was a movie produced with a specific vision that was made with the understanding that there was no major studio behind it to fund it or to distribute it.  Eventually, it took on the definition of any film produced without funding by a major Hollywood studio system.  The emphasis on the funding denigrated the original mission of independent filmmakers because then a movie like Lord of the Rings despite being distributed by New Line Cinema, a subsidiary of Warner Bros., would qualify as an independent because outside investors put up the initial money to make the high budgeted trilogy.  Also, with the popularity of A-List actors flocking to do independent movies during the height of the Sundance era, major studios decided to create indie film divisions because they saw it as a cheap way to make movies using A-List actors for smaller films and thus saving a lot of money.  These films became about low budget with big stars, but were never able to really connect with audiences and many of the major studios shut down their indie film labels like Warner Independent, Paramount Vantage, and others.  Now, there seems to be quite a big confusion among some of the posters here that Rogue Filmmaking may be a possible redirect to Guerilla Filmmaking which would be in error.  Guerilla Filmmaking was a movement that essentially focused on making no-budget movies while disregarding permits, stealing shots and locations, and quite often pulling off stunts that put cast and crew in danger.  Whereas Rogue Filmmaking is a movement unto itself focusing on counter programming against the studios, often made by studio insiders dissatisfied with the creativity within the studio system, and focusing more on the quality, art, and story of the content.  Therefore, the term Rogue Filmmaker should be kept for inclusion.   impactview | Talk  — Preceding undated comment added 04:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a lovely essay but your personal reflections on the use of the term do very little (nothing at all, actually) to substantiate the notability of the term. For that we need significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. In this instance, we would need reliable sources to verify your claims above. Stalwart 111  05:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Listen, if you have any reliable sources supporting your claims, please share them. If reliable sources exist, then the article may meet notability requirements and many of us may be convinced to change our votes. However, just arguing that the article is notable without backing up the claim with sources is just going to result in a delete outcome. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I welcome these healthy discussions of the terms Independent Filmmaker, Guerilla Filmmaker, and Rogue Filmmaker. What is notable is that if some of the same logic were to be applied to the terms Independent Filmmaker and Guerilla Filmmaker, they would not survive the scrutiny to even be listed on Wikipedia.  The term Independent Filmmaker is debated ad-nauseum by Hollywood Filmmakers.  Ask any filmmaker what is an independent film and you will notice rather quickly that there is no consensus of a definition.  The definition I referenced is from the Independent Film & Television Alliance (IFTA) which has been running the American Film Market (AFM) annually in Santa Monica for over 25 years.  THE AFM is one of the top 5 film markets in the world (if you do not believe me or want a reference, please ask any of the 400 independent film sales agents that setup shop each year in Santa Monica).  The reference to Lord of the Rings in terms of it qualifying for independent film status was also provided by IFTA. The position of IFTA is that any film financed 51% outside of the major Hollywood Studio system is an Independent Film.  (http://ifta-online.org/sites/default/files/FAQs_updated+Sep2013.pdf).  Tell this to an independent filmmaker and sit back and watch the fireworks as heated arguments flare up.  If we look at the logic of the discussions above, they would most likely bar Independent Filmmaker from inclusion on Wikipedia as there is no real definition.  Now, if we look at the term Guerilla Filmmaker, that is another source of wide debate with a lot of people using it interchangeably with Independent Filmmaker.  This would be incorrect because Guerilla Filmmaker is a subset of Independent Filmmaking (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerrilla_filmmaking).  Again, even amongst filmmakers, there are debates as to what truly is a Guerilla Filmmaker.  I invite anyone to ask a filmmaker what is an Independent Filmmaker or a Guerilla Filmmaker and to define these terms and you will see that they cannot consistently do so.  These riddles may never be resolved which is no surprise why there is much debate here for Rogue Filmmaker.  The term Rogue Filmmaker which is also a subset of the Independent Filmmaker movement is widely used just like Guerilla Filmmaker or Indie Filmmaker. Just Google the number of film production companies and related entertainment media companies and you will see something very common, many include the term Rogue in their company names.  Why?  Because that all strive for that authenticity of true independent filmmaking which is separate from Guerilla Filmmaking which really just stands for no-budget filmmaking.  Therefore, the term Rogue Filmmaker should be kept.  impactview | Talk  — Preceding undated comment added 19:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment On Wikipedia, articles require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Independent filmmaker and guerilla filmmaker both meet this criteria, even if these sources disagree with each other. If you could provide a link to 4 or 5 sources on rogue filmmaking that meet the above requirement, then this deletion debate will likely end in a keep.  Otherwise, this article will almost certainly end up deleted. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I think every serious artist has to be at least a bit of a rogue, that is willing to break or bend the rules of his/her medium. Kitfoxxe (talk)
 * 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.