Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Notability (films)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page. 

The result of the debate was default to keep, nomination withdrawn. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Notability (films)
This proposed guideline has not progressed in sometime and is redundant and in conflict with other notability guidelines. Please consider the wisdom of WP:CREEP when evaluating this nomination. Kevin Murray 00:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Nomination withdrawn I can see that the consensus is to keep but tag as rejected due to the archival value outweighing the confusion in this case.  However,  I do think that there will be other cases where deletion will better serve WP. --Kevin Murray 18:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry you are losing here, but you are misstating the consensus. Consensus is for keep.  Other perspectives no consensus for any action.  I do not support a "rejection" tag.    MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 21:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. Tag it as rejected, sure, but we don't delete failed proposals without a good reason why nobody should be able to see it. -Amarkov moo! 00:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This instruction creep material doesn't die; it keeps being misunderstood and applied at AfD etc. There is no point to archiving it. --Kevin Murray 00:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes there is. The point is so that someone else who wants to make a notability guide for films can say "Look at what I shouldn't do!" If it's deleted, then when someone else has the idea, which they will, they won't know why the previous one failed, so they may well make the same mistakes. -Amarkov moo! 01:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. Please provide specific examples of conflict with other guidelines. Esn 00:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * For one, it gives a restatement of WP:N as a criterion, which is fine. But that's only one of the criteria that make an article meet it, which contradicts the guideline. -Amarkov moo! 01:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Then do you propose deleting all of the other notability guidelines as well, for people, music, etc? According to your logic, they are all redundant and contradictory because they all have extra requirements to the primary criterion. Esn 02:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment In fact, there is a clear obgoing effort by 1 or 2 editors to tag multiple proposed guidelines as "rejected" such as the ongoing efforts at WP:SCHOOL, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:CONG and elsewhere. Edison 14:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep and tag as rejected. We don't delete proposals because they've been rejected. --Farix (Talk) 01:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It hasn't been clearly rejected - I think it's still being discussed, though it's true that all parties are somewhat weary and the last post in the talk page was on Feb. 8. Neither the supporters nor the oppo*nents seem to have a big numerical advantage at this point. Still, I think that what we have now is an improvement over the mess that was there a few months ago. Esn 03:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. We don't delete proposals that don't gain consensus. --- RockMFR 01:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Tag as rejected per something like WP:MEME (although, to be fair to the nom, this is probably the only way to "prove" no consensus on a WP:N derivative). Nifboy 01:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Extremely useful in addressing 9/11 conspiracy theories films made by non-notable conspiracy theorists. Couldn't do without it.  Helpful criteria in deciding whether one of these self-made projects is notable.    MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 01:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep can be tagged as historical or rejected to avoid instruction creep. Deletion seems like clear overkill unless there is clear evidence that the proposal has been misused (I haven't seen any but I haven't followed it closely lately).  Eluchil404 02:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and tag it appropriately. There is absolutely no reason for deletion. Prolog 02:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep We are not IMDB. Explicit film notability guidelines are necessary.  Update them as required.  --Tbeatty 03:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep If anything, this proposed guideline should be refined further, more focused and made a full guideline for the project. JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  04:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So tag it as rejected or historical. —Centrx→talk &bull; 05:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Needs improvements, but has its uses.--MONGO 05:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve it. Also, it's odd to suggest deletion because it's redundant AND contradictory.  The explanatory details that sere deemed "contradictory" prevent it from being fully derivative/redundant.  The whole point of a notability guideline for a specific class of articles is to refine and detail those points relevant to that class... this means it will be based on the primary notability guidelines (misread here as "redundant"), but it will clarify and expand on points most relevant to film articles (misread here as "contradictory"). zadignose 06:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Undecided perhaps merge elements with with WP:FICT? Like many policy issues on WP, it seems to be difficult to reach consensus. This makes me want to reject it as an official policy, but it might be worth keeping it open for more discussion & perhaps keeping a cut down policy that a consensus can be reached on. Dr Aaron 11:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Mark as rejected. Hiding Talk 11:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - used and useful. Tom Harrison Talk 14:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Deleting proposals is not so useful, but arguably we're getting way too many of these pages. Keep, reject, and merge relevant content into WP:FICT, WP:BK (broaden in scope because books and films are related) or WP:BIO (for actors).  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  15:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, as it’s useful for separating the wheat from the chaff. Brimba 16:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but tag as rejected, while I agree this guideline is CREEPy, tagging a proposal as historical or rejected actually tends to prevent endless rehashing-that way, there's something right there to say "Someone already thought of that, it failed to achieve consensus." Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 17:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per above reasons and tag rejected per consensus. - Denny 19:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep a usefull tool. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 01:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * keep but mark as rejected as per User:Amarkov, User:TheFarix, User:Nifboy, User:Eluchil404, User:Centrx, User:Dr Aaron, User:Hiding, User:Seraphimblade above. Travb (talk) 04:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, tag is as rejected proposal, it doesn't mean it is rejected and it should be deleted. It is for historical purposes and perhaps try to improve on this and propose it again. May be of interest to some. Terence Ong 恭喜发财 12:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems like a good guideline, might need a little polish but certainly on the right track. [[Image:Flag_of_Australia.svg|25px]] Mobile 01 Talk  13:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep There is a clear need for a guideline to help sort out notable films from random efforts by everyone who owns a camcorder and wants his film in Wikipedeia. There is excessive haste to delete the work of other editors who have contributed to a number of proposed guidelines for which they see a need. Edison 14:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep notability guidelines need to be strengthened across the board to eliminate the cruft on Wikipedia. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:17, 28 February 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.