Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woggie Movie (2012)


 * 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. Michig (talk) 21:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Woggie Movie (2012)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is about a movie with no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. None of the sourcing in the article establishes notability, and I can find no coverage in my own searches. A PROD was removed by the article creator. Based on the user name of the article creator, and the name of the writer/director of this movie, there is a conflict of interest. Whpq (talk) 13:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  14:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: Fails WP:NFILM, no/very little coverage in reliable sources. Esquivalience t 14:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete I just gave the article a facelift, but chose to not list its many dozens of cast. The thing exists, but lacks coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:NF.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 16:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Article clearly fails WP:NFILM.  Puffin  Let's talk! 23:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: fails WP:NFILM even with the attempts at reference stuffing through "inherited" notability. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The subject of this article is referred to twice in Wikipedia on the Ben Woolf page and Kaili Say page. Domiziano Arcangeli also has a role in Woggie and has a wikipedia page. That makes 3 notable actors, one of which, Ben Woolf is featured for 15 minutes. User Gogo dodo keeps deleting all references to my film through Ben Woolf Articles which is not appreciated and when I find out how to accuse of vandalism I will. Another film linked on Ben Woolfs page has the same references and has gone unmolested.I am aware of how films in Hollywood get into blogs and newspapers and film festivals, it's called cash. The users so eager to delete this article are cold and blunt to the point where I really can't blame women for staying off wikipedia. I detect bias by the people wanting to delete an article where the subject is mentioned twice in wikipedia and can be linked to for the curious. There is no bias here, I found the subject of the article was referenced twice in Wikipedia so I created it. To merely make the statements "Do not take it to heart" and "Too close to the subject of article", or "Do not get offended" in the policy pages of Wikipedia has contributed to the editors rude comments and bad manners. Just read the above 5 motions to delete having words like "fail", "unnotable", "unremarkable", "The Thing". A better policy would be to establish a code of friendly statements as to why an article should be deleted, cruel unkind statements and adlibbing should be prohibited. Aberrated (talk) 10:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Aberrated (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * After dealing with the above hacks I will not be heartbroken if this non-biased article is removed. If being mentioned on Wikipedia twice does not give the subject merit then I guess Wikipedia is not a credible source. I looked up Wikipedia and it appears to have been degraded over the last several years. Please by all means do not "Take it to heart" because you are "Too close to Wickipedia". It is obvious to see evil intentioned people have infiltrated Wickipedia with donations and now run things. I have seen it happen with other sites that "Used to be Credible". Articles for reliable sources and notability can be bought and so can an article on Wikipedia. Great site if you want to slander someone or a topic and leave the creator of the subject powerless to correct it or let the truth be known. Please by all means delete the article, the search engines are full of direct links to the film which people watch and enjoy everyday without someone "Paying the Way" to Notability. If you want please remove all references to the film in Wickipedia. Not once did any of the above hacks ask me if I was close to the subject of the article, instead proposed deletion without trying to work something out. Reveal the Identity - User WHPQ clearly violates Wikipedia policy by trying to out my true identity as the writer/director - Which is a personal attack and could leave me compromised.Aberrated (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The article and IMDB both clearly state the name of the writer/director is "Abe R. Rated". You chose the user name "Aberrated", so I fail to see how I have tried to out your true identity.  -- Whpq (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Reveal the Identity - Once again User Whpq is trying to assume or out an identity of an editor which is against Wickipedia Policy. Not once has he simply asked via private communication. That is a Personal Attack. Can one of the above hacks please correct the Unlucky Charms link on the Ben Woolf page. It is not associated with the link. The film Unlucky Charms can be researched on Ben Woolfs IMDB page. This would be a much more suitable use of your time. Thanks. Aberrated (talk) 03:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As per WP:DOXING, it is only considered outing if the information is revealed involuntarily. Since you clearly gave your name out in your username, it is not outing. Esquivalience t 04:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The writer/director of the film Woggie is not named aberrated. Once again the creator of the article was never asked if he/she was tied to the project. If the creator is, the policy of declaring a connection to article in the article should be explained by the questioning editor. People close to the subject of articles are preferred not to create articles and edit but are not prohibited. Still waiting for one of the above hacks to merely ask. Aberrated (talk) 05:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * User Schmidt that jumped in and contributed to my page in the name of helping, then jumped right in to vote for deletion of article has a conflict of interest. He is an actor currently going for film roles. I question his intentions after viewing his page on Wickipedia Michael Q. Schmidt, it was created by and built up by sock puppets. The sock puppets, too many to list were all under user "LLking". Several actors from the film Woggie are in a film with him called "Caravaggio and my Mother the Pope". He uses LA Casting and I may of even considered him for a role in Woggie, I will have to check my log at LA Casting.I am glad to see he has a page on Wickipedia but his IMDB page lists credited roles in B movies and uncredited extra roles in grade A film. I am not even going to be anal enough to see how many film projects he was involved in made it to Wickipedia pages. I could go on but will end it here. Aberrated (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Old news, and not a secret. I have a reputation for using my knowledge of film and television to save many articles such as the one you wrote, and one for NOT writing about projects in which I have conflict of interest. It is not helpful to try to smear those who may be willing to assist. Show this project as meeting WP:NF and I'd support a keep.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 22:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And please read WP:OWN. Once contributed to Wikipedia, the page is not "yours"... its everyone's.  Schmidt,  Michael Q.
 * Publicly available through IMDB, the person responsible for the Woggie movie is a person named David Richard Ramsey who bills himself as "Abe R. Rated". The person who wrote the film article being discussed here and who has made many edits to it is you... User:Aberrated. Yes, you could have chosen your username to respect the film and its creator, but as two names are too similar to be a coincidence... and as Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of an affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation, I ask directly... are you filmmaker David Richard Ramsey (known as Abe R. Rated), or not? Do you meet the definitions described under WP:COI, or not? Note: COI is not "forbidden", just discouraged.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 22:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Editors contributing to wickipedia have a right to privacy as their true identity does not have to be and should not be divulged unless the editor agrees. Please by all means ask via private message. Woggie the film is viewable for free on IMDB, YouTube, and Vimeo. The film is downloadable and free on the official site and is downloadable and viewable for free on archive.org listed as Creative Commons 3.0 . No financial compensation is going the way of the this editor or the Woggie Film. So the answer is no, I do not qualify for wp:coi because Woggie the film is free for everyone. Aberrated (talk) 23:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Read MOS:FILM to better understand the expected format for film articles, and then please read the inclusion criteria for films. To remain, this thing needs actual more-than-trivial coverage in reliable sources... not mentions in blogs or listings in databases. Then read WP:NOTINHERITED to understand that a film's notability is not dependent upon the names of its actors.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 03:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Aberrated, Schmidt has been an editor here for years and he's also an administrator for Wikipedia- not something that is given out lightly or easily. I can personally vouch for his editorial integrity and that he does NOT use Wikipedia as a place to promote himself, nor does he make any edits for personal gain. This extends to AfD arguments as well. If he wasn't as well known on Wikipedia for his integrity then it's possible that he'd be suspect (although the connection is very tenuous and as Schmidt said, the film is free on several websites so there would be no financial gain), but he's been on here since 2008 and is extremely well respected on here. I've interacted with him enough to where I know that if he says that he does not have a COI, then I'll believe that as the truth. The thing about COI is that at its basis the policy asks that if you do have a COI, that you admit this up front and study the policy. This does not mean that you cannot edit or create articles, just that you need to be transparent in all things and that you follow policy extremely closely to avoid any potential issues. I've had more than one instance where I've edited alongside editors who have had a conflict of interest and their edits posed no problem, so it can be done. I also need to concur with some of the others about the doxing policy- this only pertains to situations where there is nothing to substantiate that someone is a specific person or has a likely conflict of interest. For example, your username and the director's pseudonym are identical, so that raises suspicion that you are either the director or someone affiliated with him. (There are also similar situations where someone adopted a username where it is identical to similar usernames used by a director or other person influential with the film.) It is possible that you're just a random fan that chose to name yourself after the director- I've seen it happen in similar situations. However whether or not the COI is valid, the best way to respond to this was to very calmly state whether or not the claims are true. Responding with accusations against the nominator and other editors in the way you have not only violates WP:CIVILITY but it also places incoming editors on the defensive because we will wonder if you will make similar remarks about anyone who disagrees with you. At this point the only way to keep the article is to prove its notability via reliable sources per WP:RS- something that Schmidt was trying to help with prior to arguing for deletion. That's the way he works- he tries to improve the article as he finds sourcing before making his decision. I would like to politely ask that you refrain from commenting on anything other than the article, how it can be improved, and how it passes WP:NFILM by way of reliable sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   07:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Schmidt emailed me days ago and informed me the article was going to be deleted. I guess the sharks are waiting for the ceremonial 7 days to expire. The article being on Wickipedia does not help the film one bit, it would help Wickipedia users reading about the film in other articles on Wickipedia. As a child I had a set of encyclopedias which due to weight and size the information contained in them had to be key data and highly notable. An encyclopedia on the internet having unlimited storage capacity should be able to cover every person, event or subject that ever existed. Imagine that.Aberrated (talk) 11:37, 22 March 2015 (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.