Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Irish Filmography


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The Irish Filmography

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)


 * Delete. Non-notable book. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

With nothing more than “Non-notable book”, busybody Liefting condemned the page for The Irish Filmography within 10 minutes after creation of the page had begun, and well before it was completed with inline citation and link to reviews. Obviously he has never seen the book, and almost certainly knows nothing about film reference literature. It is a comprehensive non-fiction reference book of some 2,000 titles covering the first century of Irish cinema, including every feature and short produced in Ireland, as well as virtually every film about Ireland and Irish people produced outside Ireland. Aardvarkzz (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Declaring it as a non-notable book is sufficient for an AfD. There is nothing wrong with putting an AfD up immediately after article creation. Longevity on WP will not give an article a better reason to remain on WP. Also, an AfD is not like a speedy deletion where the article can be summarily removed. AfDs take at least a week to process. As for being called a "busybody" not only is that uncivil as already pointed out but it is up to every WP editor to be such a "busybody". What you are calling being a busybody I would call peer review - something WP needs a lot of. If you are creating an article and decide to save it and work on it latter you can use the underconstruction tag. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep the book is itself encyclopaedic, and the subject long neglected. Whilst it might be over-egging to call it scholarship, it is at least as notable as the endless procession of scifi books descibed in such detail--Brunnian (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Firstly, referring to another editor as a "busybody" is uncivil, so let's not do that again, please, Aardvarkzz? Secondly, I find that while there's enough references to the book to prove that it exists, there are very few that actually deal with discussing the book directly - most of what I've been able to find have been passing mentions of it. Unless there are some good references that are available that review the book itself, then it doesn't meet the requirements for inclusion here. Delete unless someone can provide said references. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The sourcing looks somewhat better, I suppose. Weak keep. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. We can't start having articles about every book on the market, unless it is known almost around the world (Guiness book of records, Webster dictionary, Bible, etc.). In other words, I agree with the "Non-notable". -- Lyverbe (talk) 23:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep the page because it describes the definitive reference book about the entire body of films in a country’s first 100 years of cinema. I am an expert in the subject of movie and film literature. None of the other people who have commented for or against claim to have any knowledge or interest in the subject of cinema and its literature. I create pages only for people, books, periodicals, etc. that are unquestionably important and legitimate parts of cinema and its history. It is essential that those who render judgment for or against this or any other book have competence in the book’s subject. Aardvarkzz (talk) 09:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's not correct. It's essential that people from both sides of this discussion show how it meets Wikipedia's guidelines. Do you have citations that prove the importance of the book as you state? If so, then you need to present them. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —  Lady  of  Shalott  06:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions.  —  Lady  of  Shalott  06:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand and further source per WP:IMPROVE, WP:POTENTIAL, WP:Notability (books), WP:IMPERFECT, WP:WIP, WP:DEADLINE, et al. While sending an article to AFD within minutes of creation is within guideline, it might have been better all around to have done a quick search to see if sources were available and then tagged it for such so the author might know of concerns. WP:ATD suggests many other ways an article might be improved to serve the project rather than nominating deletion. Available sources indicate the book's notability through its being itself used as an encyclopedic and accepted research source for Irish Film by both educational institutions and film industry .. and many, many more. And note, educational tomes rarely get looked at by nationally known reviewers, and so guideline allows their notability to be considered in context to what they are and who they serve. With respects, IMHO even the most minimal of WP:BEFORE should have prevented this being sent to AFD. Kudos to User:Aardvarkzz for bringing this article aboard to improve Wikipedia. Nice job.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per MichaelQSchmidt above. Early AFD nominations may be permitted, but nominators should realize the hazards of nominating articles at a very early stage. Many editors, especially newer editors and those at public computers, create articles in mainspace, saving as they go along. If the article they're working on is nominated before it's finished, the nomination usually effectively ends any further updates from that editor. A very early nomination can also feel like a slap in the face to a new editor, who may interpret the AFD as "we don't want you here" and quit the project. --NellieBly (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep MichaelQSchmidt has once again found plenty of sources. A champion of the Rescue Squadron.  And I'd like to point out that nominating an article the same day it was created, is rather lame.  Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should do so.   D r e a m Focus  09:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As I have already mentioned there is nothing wrong with putting an article up for deletion a short time after it was created. If it is not notable there is no reason for it to remain on WP. Leaving the article on WP does not make it any more notable. The new pages list exists for just this very reason - to vet any new articles for suitability. If articles are not checked at via the new pages patrol they will disappear into WP and will have less of a chance of being reviewed. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To User:Alan_Liefting: As such is within guideline, perhaps User:Dream Focus should be less concerned with your good faith nomination 10 minutes after the article's creation. My own concern is your nomination popping in between a series of the author's active edits improving the article... your nomination being only one minute after one of the author's ongoing edits  and one minute before his next . The author's pique above was unfortunate, but perhaps understandable. All I might advise is temperance and patience when a new article is being created, and perhaps a discussion with the author about your concerns. If a discussion had been initiated, your concerns would have been addressed and we might not be at this AFD today.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Philosophical comment. Jimmy Wales wants WP to be the sum of human knowledge. This is a bold but laudable goal. Is it really able to be achieved? Should a limitation be placed on the extent of documenting the sum of human knowledge? The sum of human knowledge is an extremely large body of work. WP does limit it to that which is notable and verifiable, but even with these limitations there is huge amount of information that could be incorporated into WP. Should a level of notability be set such that all topics are included and those below are not (ie ignore the current level of establishing notability). This raises many questions of course. What is the level set at? How is notability established across topics in different fields of knowledge? Looking at one topic area, namely books, is an instructive exercise. WP already has many articles on books. All the books that fit within the WP requirements of notability and verifiability for books would probably amount to the total number of articles current on WP.  Books are often reviewed so it is easy to obtain the necessary verification of the article contents. Now even if less that half of WP articles were about books would mean that the whole of WP is skewed to only one range of articles. There is already a degree of dissatisfaction with the inclusion of some articles relating to popular culture. The Pokemon character is a case in point. Do we carry on using the deletion process for article inclusion or should some sort of metric be developed so an article can be assigned a number to determine inclusion into WP? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps your observation might be better asked at Village pump, so that Mister Wales' ideas and goals and hopes for a paperless encyclopedia might be further dicussed. While nice to pose your philosophical comment here, this discussion should remain focused on this article.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Actually, I agree with Alan about the great over-broadness of our criteria for books, though I am not quite sure how to make it more precise without discussing a large number of special cases. I think part of the problem is that the ones we write about tend to be somewhat random based on people's interests, rather than doing anything systematic, so the ones we do have are a mixed lot, rather than the most notable. In general, the place for routine books is the article on their author, and most  encyclopedic  works would normally do that as the default. In this particular case, I think the refs show that this is the standard reference book on a significant subject, and I would consider that as one of the key criteria.     DGG ( talk ) 02:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The fourth Google Books snippet from The myth of an Irish cinema: approaching Irish-themed films by‎ Michael Patrick Gillespie, says "Rockett, in his monumental reference book, The Irish Filmography, chooses not to engage the question beyond announcing his wide-ranging intention to ..." This does two things; first it characterizes the work as "monumental" (which means notably large) and then analyzes it. This is substantial coverage in secondary sources, and the nominator needs to conform to Wikipedia's rules WP:BEFORE, WP:PSTS and WP:N, so that I can get truly non-notable stuff deleted. Abductive  (reasoning) 07:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Not wishing to simply opine and move on, and out of respect for the article's author, I have been involved in expanding and sourcing the article since this discussion began.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It sounds useful for meeja studies types.Red Hurley (talk) 19:50, 22 December 2009 (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.