Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silent (2007 film)


 * 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. Jaranda wat's sup 02:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Silent (2007 film)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable upcoming movie. No reliable sources found to prove notability.  Sasha Callahan   01:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Bad Faith Nomination - LOL. What are you going to do Sasha? Hunt down every article I've ever written and propose them for deletion? This is a perfect example of why 16 year olds shouldn't be allowed any sort of responsibility. First you make insulting personal comments about me, then when that doesn't work, you become the typical vindictive 16 year old girl? Why not just call me a skank and pull my hair? OK, you want to debate sources proving notability?
 * The well-known horror website Dread Central (http://www.dreadcentral.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2021)
 * The New Jersey Star-Ledger "Silver Screen Redux" (Kwoh, Leslie (07-08-2007)
 * The Harold Lloyd Silent Films discussion board (http://p079.ezboard.com/new-silent-film--fall-2007/ftheharoldlloydcommunityfrm5.showMessage?topicID=1020.topic)
 * "What's new in Tribal Dance?" (http://www.tribaldancearts.com/1new.html)
 * Dark Horizons - The Random Spiel: May 2nd 2007 (http://www.darkhorizons.com/news07/070502o.php)

Shall I continue? How many sources/references do I need to establish "notability"? KennethStein 02:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment to KennethStein: you may offer a defence of "Bad faith nomination", which is what you appear to be implying. It is unclear where or when she has attcked you, but you should refrain from attacking back, please be civil. I note that your autobiography Ken Stein has been speedied twice already today - could that have anything to do with your anger? Ohconfucius 03:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * comment to Ohconfucius: Oh trust me, my comments to her were far more civil than the ones she was making to me. Right now she's simply looking up articles I've written and either proposing them for deletion, or getting friends of hers to and then arguing in favor of deletion. This is not the only article of mine she doing it to. The truth is, she's 16yrs old, immature, and throwing a wikipedia version of a hissy-fit. Not trying to be petty, I'm just trying to call a spade a spade.KennethStein 03:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply kindly desist from disrupting wikipedia. You have been attempting to create a walled garden of articles to support your pretention to wikipedia, then arguing the deletion (justified in my view) of your autobiography in a totally uncivil manner; and trying to make a point with your AfD of Lay Down Sally. Ohconfucius 04:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply to Ohconfucius - I disagree with the assessment that I am "disrupting" wikipedia, or attempting to create a "walled garden". I think that characterization is unfair. I am simply writing about what I know, which happens to be movies. If you look at my edit history, you'll see that is where the vast majority of contributions are. Would you rather I edited articles on the Crimean War or particle physics, about which I have little or no knowledge? If I had the time, I would go thru and add every movie I could think of, but I don't - only those that I have specific knowledge of, or interest in. With regard to "disrupting wikipedia" and arguing "uncivilly", I hardly feel the record bears that out. I repeatedly asked Sasha to refrain from making personal attacks and to keep the sarcasm out of the debate, but she refused. Then she responded by essentially proposing any article that I had written for deletion. If anything, she's being more disruptive than me. I was simply trying to add to the database of information. It's an egregious double standard to allow Sasha to open up an article(s) for debate, simply because I wrote tham and she's angry at me, without any safeguards, while everybody jumps to protect her lone article. Then pile on the insult by calling me "disgruntled", when she's the one who started the "bad faith nomination" train rolling...KennethStein 04:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * comment Many editors work on articles/subjects they know nothing about, myself included, and this is encouraged. I find it is a very good way of learning about other topics, how to edit a wikipedia article; and it also imparts objectivity in exact opposite to how creating an article about yourself is not encouraged for reasons of lack of objectivity, although writing articles about films in which you have been an extra is considered acceptable, but I must admit to being suspicious about your motives after posting Ken Stein twice in one day. Ohconfucius 06:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It is
 * Reply to Ohconfucius I submitted it twice because I've never had an article deleted before and didn't realize what happened. So I submitted it again, thinking I had erred somewhere in the submission process. When I realized what happened, I disagreed with the "Speedy Deletion" and was attempting to write a more detailed biography using the "hangon" tag in order to start citing sources and such to attempt to establish "notability" when Sasha started insulting me and trying to delete everything I had ever written... With regard to writing it myself, you said it yourself, it's not encouraged - but it's not forbidden either. It'd be hard for anyone to objectively look at the biography I wrote as anything other than a brief factual synopsis. It's hardly laudatory. I kept it brief for exactly that reason. It had been my intention to try to write biographies for everyone in the cast and directors that I know that I've been in films with and create articles, I just started with myself. Additionally, Rock 'n' Roll High School Forever (which I did not write) has a pretty lame page with virtually nothing on it, I was going to update that as well. Third, I was more than just an "extra" in Silent. It is a featured supporting role with a ton of dialogue and action that significantly impacts the storyline and the main characters. That may sound self-serving, but that didn't become an issue until I needed to establish "notability" for an entertainer. I wasn't even going to do that, I just got tired of seeing all the red "no-article" links on the page (which someone else added, I might note. I changed them back to just normal font. Someone reverted them back to links and suggested I write articles...) There was no nefarious intent. 208.101.170.165 16:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC) KennethStein 01:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Even if the nomination was in bad faith I can't see how this article stablishes notability of any kind. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  04:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per User:Caribbean H.Q., and a spot of crystal-ballery. There will always be a following for low-budget movies, but this one is not even released yet. Ohconfucius 04:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per User:Caribbean H.Q. and Ohconfucius.  Citi Cat   ♫ 04:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per User:Caribbean H.Q., without siding one way or another regarding the personal attacks above. spazure  (contribs) (review) 06:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing exists to suggest that this film does anything to pass the notability guidelines set by WP:MOVIE, including the fact that it hasn't even been released. And while I'm not going to say that the sources provided "don't count", they really don't do much to establish notability (again, take a look at WP:MOVIE). Calgary 06:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - As per Calgary WebHamster 09:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. --TotesBoats 11:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable film by non-notable production company with non-notable cast, article created by one of the actors in the film. Corvus cornix 16:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Answer to Corvus cornix - Yes it is the first film for Michael Pleckaitis's production company (RevScope) but it's not his first film as director, it's his 4th. Google him. There are plenty of results. Additionally, where is there listed a prohibition againt an actor in a film creating an article about that film? 208.101.170.165 18:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC) KennethStein 01:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Another aspect of this film's unique contribution to the field of cinema, is that in the 70-80 years since the "sound-era" of movies began (generally considered 1929 to the early 30's), this will be just the fourth silent movie produced and only the second one in the U.S. (Jacques Tati with his Les Vacances de Monsieur Hulot (1953); In 1999, the famous Finnish filmmaker Aki Kaurismäki produced the silent film Juha; and Mel Brooks with Silent Movie (1976)) 208.101.170.165 19:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC) KennethStein 01:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And that Cthulhu thing, surely? Artw 18:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That is very interesting, although I do wonder if perhaps other, non-notable independent silent films with limited releases have indeed been made, but we just don't know about them. That being said, if what you're saying is true, whileit would be a lovely addition to the article, it still doesn't establish notability. The problem is that although not used very often these days, the silent film genre is indeed a well-established genre, and while silent films are for the most part no longer made, the fact that frome time to time one or two films may refert to the silent-film style does not make those films notable, as they do not represent a major, lasting contribution to their field (cinema), and they do not represent milestones in the fiels of filmmaking (WP:MOVIE). Calgary 19:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to simplify It's not a unique contribution to the field of cinema. Visiting a style of film that is generally extinct is not unique, as while it is very uncommon, the genre and style already exists and is well established. While by today's standards the fact that it is a silent film may separate it from all other films, it still is still not an original contribution or innovation. Because silent films already exist, the effect that this film's production has on the overall field of cinema is virtually nonexistant. Calgary 21:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So, what is your definition of "unique"? Let's be serious, if we were to restrict the wikiwikipedia's coverage of films to films that were truly unqie tht would restrict us from covering 90% of the Oscar nominated films.
 * The number of articles on the wikipedia has been doubling every year So long as those articles aren't complete crap, this is a good thing.  There have been comparisons published, serious comparisons, where recognized subject area experts compared the wikipedia's articles to those of commercial online encyclopedia.  On subjects those other online encyclopedia cover wikipedia held its own.  There were some articles where the experts consensus was that the wikipedia's article was better, than Brittanica's.  So, quality, at least for those kinds of articles, is under control  AND, in addition, the wikipedia covers well over a million topics not covered by its commercial rivals.
 * I keep encountering a view in the afd fora -- people who don't seem to want to cover much beyond what Britannica or Encarta cover. But those who seem to hold this view never really offer an explanation as to why they hold this view.
 * Hollywood makes several hundred films per year. Bollywood about twice that.  In a wikipedia that added a million new articles in the last year, why the heck cant't room be found for a couple of hundred new fils?  Why can't room be found for a thousand new films.  I am not suggesting we add crap articles, artciesl that fail to comply with key policies.  However, as several people have pointed out, WP:MOVIE is not a policy.  I am not suggesting we add vanity articles, articles that violate WP:NPOV, or that don't cite authoritative sources.  While Ken Stein's involvement in the film has been noted, I haven't seen any serious suggestions that this involvment has tainted the article into a vanity piece.  And it does cite proper references.
 * I have no objection to wikipedians holding the idea that they want to cap the number of articles in the wikipedia to the 1,7 million we have now -- or to cap it at 2 miilion, or 3 million. But, if this is the real underlying objection, then we should all be finding a way to discuss this underlying idea -- not have those who want a small wikipedia picking this article as the place to draw the line.
 * Cheers! Geo Swan 19:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete with no predujice against recreating once it;s out, has established notability, etc... Artw 18:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom --Agamemnon2 21:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I feel that some action should be taken regarding the two main disputants if they choose to continue in this vein. I know that since my being very snippy over the past few days, I'm hardly the person to call anyone out on uncivility, but both User:Sasha Callahan and User:KennethStein are out of line. --Agamemnon2 21:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * First off, I stopped with the personal attacks. Second, this wasn't a nomination done in bad-faith.  I truelly believe the movie in question is non-notable, and general consensus here supports that claim.    Sasha Callahan   21:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply to User:Sasha Callahan - The trouble, Sasha, is that you made the personal attacks to begin with, then nominated the article for deletion either to make a point or in bad faith (your pick). You can't now then come back and say, "Well, gee, I stopped the personal attacks..." - They never should have started to begin with... 208.101.170.165 07:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC) KennethStein 01:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to butt in here, but as a casual observer to a public conversation, I have to say that I sincerely doubt that the nomination was in bad faith. It seems obvious that the film nominated is not notable, and I fail to see how the fact that this is also an article written by you is evidence of bad faith. It seems to me that, all of the personal attacks aside, the pages you created do indeed meet the deletion criteria (or at least, there is a very reasonable argument to be made). Now, it seems to me that rather than this being an intricate trail of vengeance and bad faith, you simply created several articles that do not meet the notability guidelines. Now, I personally think you two should stop bickering, apologize to each other and leave it at that (I'm sorry if that sounds a bit strong, it's just my view of the situation). I agree, in thefirstplace no one should make personal attacks, but seeing as it's already happened and nothing can be done to change that, I suggest that both parties do what they can to make sure this doesn't get drawn out any further than it already has. Calgary 12:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply to Calgary - This is something we wouldn't even be talking about, had Sasha (as she has admitted) not started making personal attacks and nominating my articles for deletion. Before Sasha, several editors, and other patrollers made minor edits/changes to the article, without questioning it's notability. The first one to do so was Sasha - after she (by her own admission) started making personal attacks. That's like saying, "I killed him because he was black, but my killing seems justified because everyone agrees he was a bad guy...". Her credibility is called into question. Her actions after, attacking someone personally, essentially become "fruit of the poisoned vine". If the police raid someones house because of a personal vendetta, regardless of any impropriety found in the house later, it's not subject to prosecution because their original motives/actions tainted the motives of everything after... 208.101.170.165 14:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC) KennethStein 01:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * EVIDENCE OF NOTABILITY - WP:MOVIE states "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This guideline includes published works such as books, television documentaries, full-length featured newspaper articles from large circulation newspapers, full-length magazine reviews and criticism excluding the following:..."
 * Point of fact - The New Jersey Star-Ledger wrote a full-length featured, multi-page article with color photographs and interviews with the cast/crew ("Silver Screen Redux" by Leslie Kwoh, July 08, 2007) - This is in addition to the multiple websites that has offered coverage or reviews (as listed above + more)
 * Point of fact - According to wikipedia, "The Star-Ledger is the leading newspaper in New Jersey and is based in Newark. It is a sister paper to the Jersey Journal of Jersey City, The Times of Trenton and the Staten Island Advance, all of which are owned by Advance Publications. The Star-Ledger's daily circulation is larger than the next two largest New Jersey newspapers combined and its Sunday circulation is larger than the next three papers combined."
 * You can argue the film's worth as a contribution to the field of cinema, the notability of the cast/crew, and a thousand other aspects of the film. But it's notability is clearly established as it has met wikipedia's stated guidelines regarding newspapers... 208.101.170.165 14:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC) KennethStein 01:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

*KEEP - Per Geo Swan. AND Notability established per Star-Ledger article. Also agree with comments regarding the possible appearance of a Bad Faith Nom. (I'm not assuming anything regarding her motives, just stating that the appearance of a possible Bad Faith Nom may warrant disregarding the nom) 15:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)  Checkuser-confirmed sockpuppet.  E LIMINATOR JR  22:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC) ***COMMENT to Corvus cornix - I'm sorry. Please clarify - does that also invalidate my vote agreeing with your opinion in another discussion? Should I clear my vote with you before joining future discussions? BaldDee 12:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC) ****COMMENT. A couple things. I don't "check users". I base each vote on the merits of the nom in question, I never look to see who wrote an article, who nominated it, or what their history is so I have no idea whose articles/noms I'm voting on. By my count, I've voted in 22 discussions. How many of those are by the same person/author/nominator? Additionally, I have no choice as to who my IP is. I live in a rural area of PA and am lucky to have DSL at all. As it is, there is only one ISP who provides service here. Lastly, I am not anyone's "puppet" (meat, sock, or otherwise). I was in an abusive marriage with a controlling man for 15 years, no one (especially a man) tells what to do or not to do. I will not be marginilzed. I will not permit myself to be dragged into whatever personal disputes that are going on in this discussion. Nor, will I be intimidated into voting in a particular fashion. Period. End of discussion. BaldDee 14:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC) Checkuser-confirmed sockpuppet.  E LIMINATOR JR  22:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Geo Swan 16:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:MOVIE is just a guideline, and shouldn't override common sense. I looked at the article, this passage alone, would be sufficient argument for the article's preservation:
 * Yes, key figures in an afd shouldn't be throwing mud. But the rest of us should be disregarding the mud throwing and judging the article on its merits.
 * Yes, the article could do with a bit of trimming, to sound a bit less like a commercial. But, IMO, the movie does merit coverage here.
 * IMO all bad faith nominations should be speedily closed. All nominations that look like bad faith nominations should be speedily closed.  An administrator speedy closed an afd that they believed was in retaliation for Sasha's.  That decision was, IMO, the right decision.  Let someone else, who can make an obviously good faith nomination, from reasoned arguments, make a second nomination.
 * Cheers! Geo Swan 16:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You really think this AfD should be speedy closed despite all of the reasoned "delete" !votes? How ... quaint.  And to think, anybody with a cell phone can make a movie, call it "only the third silent movie made in the United States in the last x years", and have a Wikipedia article!  Corvus cornix 20:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it should be closed. Following procedure is important.
 * Anyone who actually offered a reasoned argument here can offer the same argument if this article is renominated with a nomination that does not give the appearance of bad-faith. Geo Swan 17:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * comment "quaint" is a good word - I would have used another word beginning with 'B' more instinctively. There are quite a few 'delete' votes for me to believe it does not look like a bad faith nom at least to those, so a duck this ain't. Agree with Calgary, technology aside, going retro alone is not sufficient to assert or prove notability. Ohconfucius 07:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Closing this because of Geo Swan's own personal interpretation of bad faith would not be following procedure. And besides, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.  Corvus cornix 22:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Would it be too onerous a request to ask people to confine their comments to whether or not this article should be deleted, kept, relisted for afd by someone who hasn't had a fight with the article's creator -- and for people to avoid mocking personal comments? Geo Swan 05:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I just want to say that I think closing the afd at this point because of a possible bad faith nomination is ridiculous. If someone has listed an article for deletion and supplies a reason, and a significant number of people agree, in good faith, that the article should be deleted for the reason listed, they explain their rationale, and a fairly detailed discussion ensues, should the article be deleted 3 days and a hell of a lot of discussion later simply because there is a possibility that the nomination was in bad faith? Now, I think it's terrible when things happen in bad faith, but considering the amount of discussion (and valid discussion) that has already occured, and that another nomination, with the same rationale, would have had a very similar discussion, and considering that if the discussion were closed it would be likely to be relisted, does it really make sense to close the discussion based on the possibility of a bad faith nomination? Or would that just be a formality for the sake of formalities? Calgary 05:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Every single one of this user's edits is to a DRV or AfD page. Corvus cornix 22:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment to Corvus cornix. For the most part, I've respected your opinions (even if I don't necessarily agree with everything you've said) because they seemed reasoned and articulate. However, it seems that you've started sliding down that "slippery slope" toward making this debate a personal issue a'la Sasha. I'm referring to the obviously sarcastic tone (although you kept it polite) of your comment toward Geo Swan and your apparent belief that BaldDee's opinion isn't of value because they apparently comment on AfD's/DRV's (I'm not sure what the relevance is...). I think it's interesting that you haven't mentioned the edit history of anyone who "voted" for deletion. (I stressed "voted" because you used that word) If you are familiar with the deletion process, you should realize that this isn't a "vote" and nobody should be "voting". This is a forum to have a reasoned discussion/debate regarding the merits of the deletion nomination. I can respect the opinions of those I disagree with. On another site, I got into a majorly heated debate with another blogger - to the point of us probably wanting to hunt each other down. But we quickly learned to respect each other's opinions and we now consider ourselves friends and (ironicaly enough, even allies in several more hotly contested subjects), but it was because we based the debate on reason and sustained our positions with factual or logical argument. We never got personal with each other and kept any sarcasm solely for the purpose of levity and humor (occasioanlly even frivolity and mirth) but most importantly, not belittling another's opinion.
 * Can we at least, try to keep a level of decorum? KennethStein 01:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Response to User:Corvus cornix I'm sorry, but how are this user's edits relevant to the discussion? There is no criteria you have to meet or standards you have to pass in order to participate in a deletion discussion, and as I see it, suggesting that someone should be judged in a deletion discussion based on their contributions is not only irrelevant to the discussion, but is tantamount to biting the newcomers. Also, what's very odd is that I think that as far as any deletion discussion is concerned, participating in nothing but deletion discussions simply suggests experience, and is possibly a good thing rather than a bad thing. Calgary 06:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please review more AfDs. Single Purpose Accounts are tagged all the time.  Like I said, it's a courtesy to the closing admin, and it helps them to determine how heavily to judge the SPA's arguments.  Corvus cornix 18:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Response to BaldDee, KennethStein, and Calgary. Please view this.   New England  Review Me!/ Go Red Sox! 12:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It is completely proper for an editor to note that someone participating in a discussion is a new user who has no prior Wikipedia history. Note that I am not arguing that your !votes be removed, I am merely pointing out that your entire Wikipedia history revolves around deletion discussions, which shows that you have no experience in the inner workings of Wikipedia.  Of course, the sockpuppet accusations that you are really KennethStein with a new name and are trying to get two "votes" from one user are quite appropriate, and it is up to the closing admin to determine whether to count, or to discount, your arguments.  Corvus cornix 16:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Geez-Louise. Is it impossible to keep discussion around here to the facts of the article in question and the debate surrounding it? So far, people have made peronal attacks (at least they admitted it), sarcastic and insulting personal comments, accused people of being "sockpuppets" (I wasn't even familiar with that one until a couple minutes ago - I had to look it up) and (based on the tag at the top of the discussion) posted notes in discussions trolling for voters to come in and support their position. Several users have made reasoned and articulate arguments on both sides of the debate, but others seem to want to make this issue a personal crusade. I am admittedly interested in the outcome... others seem to have an interest for unknown reasons). Can we please just lay off the personal stuff?? Please?? KennethStein 17:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppets? Still figuring that one out, but a cursory back ground check reveals that it is suspected that TotesBoats (a new user as of 08/24/07) is a sock puppet of PEAR - whatever the hell that is. KennethStein 17:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete it might become notable once it actually hits the screen at which time it could be re-created from reliable sources. Agathoclea 18:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete due to user disrupting the AFD. Will (talk) 20:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete seems non-notable, it needs more independent sources to assert notability. Carlosguitar 18:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Is there any evidence that this film is even being released to anywhere or is it just a film that was made to submit to film contests? Consider this evidence enough for lack of notability - from the WP article: "It's less commercial than my previous films, less bubblegum," he said. Considering that the other films are non-notable straight-to-DVD releases that could probably also be submitted to afd...and he's claiming that this movie is even LESS notable...then, straight from the director - this movie is not notable. The other argument that the movie premise is original is even moot. If you read the article, it's even mentioned that this movie is like Pleasantville set further back. It also sounds a lot like the Buffy episode "Hush". So, no, this movie's claims to notability are highly suspect. - Smashville 17:34, 29 August 2007 (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.