Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shade and Shadow


 * 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. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 10:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Shade and Shadow

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This film does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for films. The references (IMDb, Amazon and the director's website) are definitely not sufficient to establish notability. The article also mentions three reviews two of which I was able to track down Film Threat and Amos Lassen. Film Threat is not a particularly good source and while Lassen has some exposure (in part for all the wrong reasons), his short blurb is more of a plot summary than a review. Pichpich (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  Gongshow  Talk 00:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Addressing article format and removing improper references is a matter for regular editing and does not usually require deletion. Any decent article archived on the director's site is acceptable, as are articles in Film Threat and Fangoria, even if they pan the film, just so long as they are not merely trivial mentions and deal with the film directly and in enough detail so original research is avoided.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Clearly my nomination is about the non-existence of solid references, not solely the fact that all current references are bad. Also Film Threat isn't a reliable source and doesn't indicate notability especially since you can pay them to write a review of your film. Pichpich (talk) 16:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Film Threat IS a reliable source for reviews of independent films per consensus decided eldewhere. That you found and offered a link to the page where Film Threat gives instructions for how a filmmaker might send them a screener is fine. The quite minimal $10 or $12 handling fee they request (as do many reliable sources) that a filmmaker pays does not make them unreliable. Film Threat is not a charity. Requiring their own time to be minimally compensated does not invalidate them for being expert, secondary, indepenent, and unbiased. Editors are welcome to examine that page you linked to see that under "Film Submission for Review Frequently Asked Questions", Film Threat explains in some detail that they DO have costs that must be covered, and that paying the minimal cost associated with their time cuts down on frivilous submissions and does not affect editorial content... only that it will receive an unbiased look-see. Period.  That reviewers be paid for their work is standard and expected, and does not lessen reliability.  Relatedly, I certainly do not think that New York Times or Variety writers work for free. That Film Threat clearly explains the reasons behind their quite minimal fee is to their credit.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, we cannot use Film Threat to assert notability. Wherever that consensus was established, it has to change. The whole idea of evaluating sources is to determine if something has been worthy of notice and noticed by independent parties. If you can pay a third-party to notice you, then coverage by that third-party is meaningless. The Film Threat page actually says "You’re paying to use the service, which is getting your film in front of professional writers so they can review your unsolicited project." In other words, you pay to get noticed. Variety writers get paid but not by directors who want their obscure film to be noticed. Pichpich (talk) 02:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What is being misunderstood here is that a reliable source is determined by its neutrality, reputation for editorial oversite, fact-checking and accuracy, and recognized expertise within their field... and not by how they pay their own bills. A comparison to Variety or New York Times, publications fully supported by advertisement revenue, is apt. What IS expected of any reliable source, just as is explained carefully by Film Threat FAQ page, is that article content be neutral, informed, and unbiased... and most specially that filmmakers have no expecation of any special treatment after paying that whopping $12 handling fee.  We do not expect nor demand that reliable sources do their work for free.  They are not non-profits.  It is reasonable that they be allowed to charge a minimal handling fee.  If you disagree, fine... but a discussion about whether or not a sources is reliable enough in context to what is being sourced belongs on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.  As they are all not non-profits, please ping me when you take Variety, New York Times, Film Threat, and other "for-profit" reliable sources to discussions at the proper venue.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But reviews are seldom used to get reliable information on the film since they seldom contain much objective information and are focused on a subjective assessment that we, as an encyclopedia, don't care about. Case in point, what exactly is the reliable information in that Film Threat review? That the film is"so fucking long [the] audience will hate [the filmmaker]"? That it "has some truly disturbing “Ring”-esque moments"? That it has "some full frontal female nudity"? That it has "some interesting acid-trippy camerawork"? No, all this is entirely subjective and is unusable (except perhaps the female nudity bit, more on that in a sec). What we do use reviews for is to establish notability with the assumption that if a film is reviewed, then it has been noticed by a neutral observer. Film Threat destroys that. Note also that the reviewers of Film Threat are typically not "nationally known critics" (the kind we require for WP:NFILM). In this particular case, the reviewer seems to have a written a dozen FT reviews. Furthermore in a reply to the review, the film's director blasts her (8 years after the fact) and though I don't really care to repeat his insults, I do find it interesting that the one piece of objective info about female nudity in the review turns out to be (according to Maitreya) misleading. Pichpich (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You're making my point for me. That the filmmaker did not like or agree with the Film Threat review underscores that despite his having paid their quite minimal processing fee, he had no editorial control over what Film Threat would eventually write. Common sense tells us that it is reasonable to expect that a great film would recieve a positive and inciteful review, that a mediocre film would receive a mediocre review, and that a crappy film would receive a scathing review... all reflective of a reviewer's opinion of those film.  Acknowledged as experts in offering their opinions, reviews in reliable sources are welcome as significant coverage under WP:GNG. The point to remember is that per policy and guideline we do not judge the truth or not of a source, but instead acknowledge that for good or bad the topic has recieved significant coverage by that source. In agreement with User:Tokyogirl79, and in light of the similar series of poorly sourced articles about the filmmaker and his projects, two reviews and two reviews only (only one being searchable online) are not enough to meet the bar set by WP:GNG and WP:NF. If there were more, we'd be having a different discussion.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You're missing my point which is that it's likely that some films reviewed by Film Threat would have received no coverage (good or bad) had they not paid the fee and this is what's at stake. Hey, I'm all for articles on mediocre films that get multiple awful reviews (and WP:NFILM is clear) but I think it's reasonable to exclude awful reviews that you bought. Pichpich (talk) 02:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sources such as New York Times or Variety are incapable of reviewing every film that is ever made... but this is an understood and accepted happenstance and we do not expect that they would have the manpower to review everything ever done. For lesser independent films we fall back to those reliable sources, sources with reputations for accuracy and editorial oversite, which have been established specifically for the purpose of reviewing the lesser films ignored by big media. Wikipedia is not to be about only popular, studio financed and promoted, blockbuster films.  I do not agree that the reviews from Film Threat can now be ignored simply because of a minimal $12 handling fee, for even with the handling fee they are proven unbiased and neutral (to many filmmaker's dismay)... but I do agree that one review does not meet WP:GNG's need for multiple.  Were there more reviews, good or bad, from other sources, this would not have devolved into a discussion of the one.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Aside from whether or not Film Threat is a reliable source, I can vouch that Amos Lassen certainly is not. He's been accused by multiple people over plagiarizing reviews and has been removed from Amazon over this, among other places. That throws his credibility into enough question to where I'd say he's out of the question as far as using as a reliable source. That leaves the Fangoria review and the FT review. I'm not able to find anything on Fangoria to show that they reviewed the film and the only things that come up on a search all point back to the director's site. Now even if Fangoria did review the movie (and I have no reason to believe that this is a lie), that leaves us with two sole reviews for the film. Two reviews are not enough to show notability for this film and there's nothing else out there to show reason as to why this would pass WP:NFILM. This is pretty much just one of many non-notable films that were added to form a walled garden around the film's director. There's also concerns of COI going on here as well, but you can see some of the other AfDs as to that.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. Despite the attempt in this AFD discussion to vitiate the consensus reached elsewhere, we do have two reliable sources that support the article. However, and in consideration of the WP:Walled garden created around the filmmaker and his projects, our having only 2 reliable sources for this topic falls on the low side of WP:GNG and their being only two available is weak for WP:NF. If or when more are brought forward, the article might be reconsidered.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Insufficient coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject as required by WP:GNG. Not that it matters for this AfD, Film Threat's receipt of money from those connected with Shade and Shadow means Film Threat is not independent of the Shade and Shadow subject so Film Threat's coverage doesn't count towards WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:40, 31 August 2012 (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.