Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trick'd Out


 * This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 00:09, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Trick'd Out
Delete. An "independent" film that hasn't even been filmed yet. It seems quite a bit below the bar for an entry. Wikipedia is not intended to generate buzz and publicity. Joyous 03:25, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Buh-bye! BLANKFAZE | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 03:31, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable/self-promo. — Sesel wa  04:35, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 06:36, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete self-promotion for future films. Mgm|(talk) 08:19, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - NN, self-promo. SteveW 12:26, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - self promotion for a no-budget film with no wide distribution arrangement, nor is it likely to get one. And no, selling it yourself over the internet doesn't count. Average Earthman 12:41, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete W/P is not a crystal ball. And it's not intended to create publicity for your "film". Oliver Keenan 16:50, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Add to it. We have pages for pro films, why not indie films? Grounded 10:22, Apr 5, 2005
 * User's only edits are to this page. Delete, not only do we not keep indie films which have failed to establish notability, we do not keep articles about pro films which have not been filmed yet. RickK 20:27, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Probably also: vanity; advertising; non-notable. After the film is released and garnered enough press attention to provide evidence of notability, it can be re-created without prejudice. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:18, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * KeepThere is nothing wrong with a page for an amateur film. People might want to know more about it and other amateur films that don't get much coverage.AFLancaster 5:22, Apr 5, 2005
 * The above is really User:69.225.49.231. RickK 04:32, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The crystal ball argument is invalid due to the unchallenged existence of pages dedicated to unreleased movies, see Episode III. Additionally, while the lack of content may have been a legitimate argument originally, it is invalid at this point due to added information. Finally, the article does not violate any Wiki rules. OutcastJiob 2:33am GMT, Apr 6, 2005
 * User's only edits are to the article and this page. RickK 04:32, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * I fail to see the relevance of this. I'm a long-time Wiki user, but this is the first time I've felt the need to make edits.OutcastJiob
 * Keep. I agree with Outcast. it doesnt break any of the rules, so there is no reason to remove it from the site. It's not that often that you get to hear about these kinds of projects, and I find them interesting. And, just throwing this out there, does it really matter? its one page out of too many to count! Alex.Hotshot 8:10pm, Apr 6, 2005
 * The above is User:69.225.49.231 again. Sorry, you only get to vote once.  And votes from anonymous Users and Users whose IDs did not exist prior to the creation of the VfD page are usually discounted, so there's no point in your voting for a third time under yet again another name.  Especially a false one.  RickK 04:34, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Networks with multiple users look funny based on their WAN IPs. Rather than accusing people of being sock puppets, you may want to consider actually providing a reason why the page should go.OutcastJiob
 * If you look above, you'll see that I did provide a reason. And I will repeat: the votes of the anons will not be counted.  RickK 05:36, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, I overlooked that. I can provide reasons why the film is notable, however, and I'll add them to the article once I've finished outlining them here. The first one that comes to mind is that the project is made completely by a group of non-professional teenagers aiming to produce a professional-level film. This is not "normal" either for independent films or Hollywood films. Second, the film is being shot entirely with entry-level consumer DV cameras, in order to demonstrate the potential of the format for films. While more common in independent filmmaking than in Hollywood, this practice is still notable due to considerable prejudice against using the DV format. Third, the film is being shot for sale with an extremely low to non-existant budget--also not a common practice in independent films, and certainly highly unusal in film as a whole. I could continue the list, but I hope this will be sufficient to establish the uniqueness of the project. OutcastJiob
 * It sounds like it's all about the technology. But you're not making any technology breakthroughs yourself, you're just using off-the-shelf equipment. How notable can it be that someone unable to raise enough money for normal equipment would try to use cheap equipment? I don't see how a low budget makes a film project notable prior to release. The fact that Easy Rider or The Blair Witch Project was made on the cheap is notable only because those movies were big commercial box-office successes. I'm baffled by your "objective of proving that this eqipment [sic] can provide a quality film." If a 16mm blowup like Leaving Las Vegas can be a commercial success, I don't think there's much left to prove. All you need is a really good cinematographer.  And really good lab work. But the big challenge is to get commercial-quality entertainment out of your "purely amatuer [sic] actors." Enjoy your premiere and the local press coverage I'm sure you'll get... Dpbsmith(talk) 20:38, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the spelling errors, I will go fix them. Your criticism of the film "project" due it using off-the-shelf equipment and low-budget is uninformed at best. That is the entire point of the technical side of the production: that professional-quality films can be made with consumer equipment. You've missed the entire point. The "breakthrough" is that there is no breakthrough with the equipment. The low budget does not make the film notable; rather, the low budget coupled with the high standard for quality and the objective of a commercial release makes the film notable. Additionally, comparing 16mm to DV demonstrates a fundamental ignorance about film in general and the merits of the various formats in particular. While not as desirable as 32mm, 16mm is generally accepted as a quality film format, unlike consumer DV. To say that a terrible film can be shot on 16mm and still be a success proves nothing, as we all know that terrible films are produced on 32mm by Hollywood and still have great popularity at the box office for unknown reasons. Your argument about only needing a really good cinematographer (I assume you mean director of photography) is also invalid--if DV is truly a useless format, cinematography will not save the film.OutcastJiob
 * I've seen hundreds of student film projects with no budgets that set out to prove the abilities of entry-level consumer cameras. I can't see how that makes this project unique. Also, about Episode III: this page is allowed to exist because it has already got significant press attention and it's part of a very famous film series. 131.211.210.12 07:44, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC) (Actually User:MacGyverMagic while not logged in, I already voted above).
 * True enough, but how many of those student films were made for sale? Regarding Episode 3, an unreleased film is an unreleased film--I agree that Episode 3 is special, but so is Trick'd Out. The popularity is nowhere near the same, of course, but just because it can't compete with one of the most anticipated films of the year doesn't make the project unimportant or non-notable. OutcastJiob
 * Delete as self-promo aka vanity. Radiant_* 18:09, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, the sooner the better. Vanity, self-promotion, not a crystal ball, non-notable, sockpuppetry, yada yada yada. And it's hard to take the promoter's gabble about technical issues seriously when he can't even get a standard film size correct (35mm, not 32mm) or doesn't seem to know the standard term "cinematographer". --Calton | Talk 00:53, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * O tempora, O mores. He probably does know how many pixels there in each video format. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:20, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Alright, I can have a laugh at myself, 32mm indeed, you'll have to excuse me, I was a bit tired at the time. That aside, all you experienced Wikipedians seem to have forgotten the rule about being polite and not calling people sock puppets unless you can prove it. Vanity is not valid, self-promotion is not valid (how on earth can it be self-promotion when there's no link to any associated website?), crystal ball is not valid (see above), non-notable is not valid (also see above), and sock puppetry is an unfounded and unproved insult. And 32mm was a result of exhaustion, not of an ignorance of film. Cinematographer is an extremely broad term. According to Wikipedia itself it means "A cinematographer (from 'cinema photographer') is one photographing with a motion picture camera. The title is generally equivalent to director of photography (DP or DoP), used to designate a chief over the camera and lighting crews working on a film, responsible for achieving artistic and techical decisions related to the image." That, however, is not the only possible usage, as the term can mean anyone who operates a film camera. And obviously just having a good cameraman--or even a good DP--won't cut it if the format is useless, as I said above. OutcastJiob
 * You seem to have forgotten the high-school debate team principle that assertion is not argument: simply declaring something "invalid" doesn't it make it so. In any case:
 * Vanity is not valid, self-promotion is not valid: "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a chatroom, discussion forum, or vehicle for propaganda and advertising (emphasis mine). Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not:...Self-promotion. While you are free to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in, remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other. Strike one.
 * "crystal ball is not valid": "Of course, we do and should have articles about notable (emphasis mine) artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions." Strike two.
 * non-notable is not valid: Attempt to make film using cheap, off-the-shelf equipment? Done before, and -- I doubt I'm going out on a limb here -- done better. Strike three.
 * sock puppetry is an unfounded and unproved insult: using the same IP address to cast two different votes is prima facie evidence of sockpuppetry; duck, walk, quack, etc. Strike four. Whoops, you were out already.
 * Come back when you've got clippings from Variety, American Film, or The New York Times. Until then, your logic-chopping is irrelevant and my vote still stands.--Calton | Talk 04:43, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * No sock puppetry going on here...my little brother "Alex Hotshot" and I are on the same network so the router IP is the same. Also, Wiki's rules allow promotion that is unbiased, as this article is. While Wiki is not a crystal ball for indie filmmakers, apparently if you get enough press coverage, it is, as in the case of Episode III. It is notable as the field of amateur photgrahpy and filmography is an often overlooked topic that may interest many people and this article is an example of what amature filmmakers do.AFLancaster
 * At dpbsmith: Film formats such as 16mm and 35mm have nothing to do with pixels. I assume, based on your previous remark, that you know this and are simply taking the opportunity to run down digital and this project. If that's the case, your remark is completely uncalled for. If this is not the case, it's not productive anyway.OutcastJiob
 * Actually, what I was intending to do was to point out that contemporary videographers might not think it was essential to know details of things like film gauges and Academy apertures... Dpbsmith (talk) 01:49, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay, I'm sorry for taking it in the wrong sense. However, I do keep up on "traditional" film, even though I think it's quite out of date, because of the historical aspects with regard to "film" as an art. OutcastJiob
 * Delete per Dpbsmith's original argument. No articles about future events.  Rossami (talk) 06:07, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. no Pythoness business. Mikkalai 02:35, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment Nobody has yet suggested "userfying" the article, perhaps because it was created by an anon. But, OutcastJiob, you seem to be closely associated with this project and you have a currently unused user page. This material and other personal information is perfectly acceptable for a user page, and incidentally Wikipedia user pages are index by Google, so if the material is there people searching for "Trick'd out" will find it. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:08, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * There you go. Perfect solution.  Delete this; move info to a new user page. - Lucky 6.9 07:11, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dpbsmith, that's a great idea. I'll stick it in my user page right now.


 * delete and user pages are not for advertising either, but, of course, if the person is closely involved in the film then that is legitimate information about that person. Keep it reasonable.  Mozzerati 07:08, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with Dpbsmith. Robinoke 15:35, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.