Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Truth in Numbers: The Wikipedia Story


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous 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 Move to Mainspace. The Project namespace is defined as "..[the] namespace that provides information about Wikipedia or its sister projects and how to use them...". Unfortunately, as certain arguments put forward below highlight, this article on a Wikipedia-related movie does not provide information on how to use Wikipedia. For this reason, I am closing this discussion with a "Move to Mainspace" result.

However, there has been consensus presented below that this page satisfies the Notability requirements for inclusion in the article namespace. Whilst any AfD discussion on this matter would override consensus on that matter, I would urge any closers of such a discussion to note that, in accordance with further arguments put forward below, consensus of Wikipedia:Miscellany for Deletion is that this page is not suitable for inclusion in the Project namespace, and to bear that in mind in any related closures. Anthøny 21:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Truth in Numbers: The Wikipedia Story

 * ( restore &#124; cache &#124; )
 * Relevant, but not at issue is ( restore &#124; cache &#124; AfD ) (DRV)

I found this article on the Wikipedia namespace today, about an independent film. It seems notable enough, I suppose, but as its not a Wikipedia project, but a 3rd party independent film. I moved it to the Article space, as that seems the most appropriate place for it. then moved it back to the Wikipedia space, and deleted the main space article a 3rd time. The article on the film was nominated for an AfD on 10 March 2007. A deletion review endorsed that deletion fully on 13 July 2007. I'm nominating it's existence under the Wikipedia space for deletion.

As this is independent film, I can't see us hosting this here as possible free advertising. Its certainly nice, that a film about Wikipedia is being made, but as its a film being produced by an outside studio, it should be in the main Article space, like every other article about a pending or released film. Additionally, as there has been no endorsement at Deletion Review about recreating this deleted article, delete overall. • Lawrence Cohen  00:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * keep. I don't see problem with "free advertising" here. Since the film is already in imdb and there already a couple of articles in press, a short wikipedia article based strictly on WP:RS is already warranted (but no one is eager to write it). What is more, Google search for the phrase does not show that wikipedia added much visibility to the film. Finally, the article has no hype at all, dry, bare facts. `'Míkka>t 01:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 *  Comment . I'm not going to say "keep" or "delete" until someone who has been involved in this can explain the history behind this article hibernating in Wikipedia space after an AfD and DRV, but I must say on first glance I agree with Lawrence. We seem to be making an exception for this movie because it's about Wikipedia.  Shouldn't it stand or fall on its own merits in the main space?  I look forward to hearing more about this. --barneca (talk) 01:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * YOu are right, this is an exception, becase it is about wikipedia, therefore it is preserved in wikipedia namespace. Usually deleted articles are allowed to "hybernate" as you put it in user namespace if there is a reasonable expectation that the article may be salvaged. But again, this is an exception, on par with such things as Meetup, i.e., about events involving wikipedians. `'Míkka>t 15:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Move to mainspace. Wikipedia space has articles about Wikipedia, but this is not about Wikipedia, it is an article about a movie, and simply doesn't belong in Wikipedia space.  Per jonny-mt below, notability may be satisfied now anyway.  If not, the article can be undeleted when/if it is satisfied.  But Wikipedia space is not the place for it, IMHO. --barneca (talk) 04:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. A film about Wikipedia is likely of interest to many wikipedians. It seems irrelevant that it has been deleted from mainspace which has specific policies for encyclopedic content. The vast majority of pages in Wikipedia space would be unsuited for mainspace but that is no reason to delete them. Has any deletion discussion said it was unsuited for Wikipedia space? And the argument about not giving "possible free advertising" is odd. We have a huge number of pages about commercial companies and products. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep the orphan While it is not strictly formally a wikiproject, I can't come up with in what space it should be otherwise, and this is very clearly of major interest to the wikipedia community.--victor falk (talk) 01:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Move to mainspace - Wikipedia namespace "is a namespace that provides information about Wikipedia or its sister projects and how to use them." This is an article about an independently-produced movie (which happens to have Wikipedia as an object of study). Put it in mainspace and see if it satisfies WP:MOVIE. -- Zim Zala Bim talk  01:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It is as much a valid part of WP space as any essay--it might also justify an article in mainspace, but discussions about WP have a home in WP space. DGG (talk) 04:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Move to mainspace While it needs a bit of a cleanup, notability is established by virtue of the articles in the New York Times and San Francisco Chronicle. In addition, the previous AfD notes WP:CRYSTAL as a reason for deletion--given that portions of the film have now been shown and it has been written about in the press, I think this argument is null and void (and the admin endorsing the deletion at DRV notes as much in their comment). Seems like a valid article to me. --jonny-mt(t)(c) Tell me what you think! 04:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Mainspacify Notability seems to be established. I agree with DGG that because of the subject, just like essays, it can be a valid part of the WP space. However, it's not an essay. It's an article, which either belongs in the mainspace or not at all. Rocket000 (talk) 06:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep An article on this subject has been written at least 3 times so far. To my knowledge the 1st time was in may 07, later in September 07 and this latest one. I think that just by consulting common sense, we must reach the conclusion that this movie deserves to have some kind of entry, weather it be an article or a project page or something else. Let me just remind everyone that 500 Pokemon species all have their entry on wikipedia. I think this is at least as relevant as the life story of Suicune. U5K0 (talk) 12:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I love it when the pokemon gambit is a good move:)--victor falk (talk) 15:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I modified my vote because I think that this mater belongs in an environment where it is accessable to those interested in it. Also I am unshure weather it would survive in the mainspace and it qould be a shame if it were to be removed completely (per above). U5K0 (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, definitely of interest to Wikipedia editors and thus can be kept in Wikipedia: namespace. Notability would be almost high enough to hoist this thing to mainspace, though I'd hesitate to do that before the film is actually out...--wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Vote modification: keep in mainspace I think the references amply fulfill wp:n, wp:rs and wp:v for a movie that it is at a sufficiently advanced stage of pre-production not to fall foul of wp:crystal.--victor falk (talk) 15:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * no, it's beyond pre-production, it's been developed, greenlit, and is currently shooting. Modesty is a fine quality, but overdoing it not as much--victor falk (talk) 15:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Move to mainspace per above. Cary Bass demandez 19:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * weak keep, no main space. There is no way this article in this form may be in the main space. When you move it there, then 90% of the content must be deleted: based on youtube and other sources that fail WP:RS criteria. I don't see any particular reason to keep this text in wikipedia namespace except as a temporary work place. But still the current contributions will have to keep in mind that fundamental wikipedia rules muat be ofserved, especially in view of the temptation "this is about us". Mukadderat (talk) 07:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - This seems like something that belongs in Wikipedia space in a similar way we use that space for Wikipedia news. If you move it to article space as a result of this MfD, the past AfD and DRV consensus are not overridden by this MfD and the article would validly be speedy deleted. Note to closer Please interprete the "move to mainspace" positions as having a keep element to them. -- Jreferee    t / c  08:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the past AfD and subsequent DRV concerning a different version of this article? As I noted above, the passage of time has rendered the arguments raised (mainly WP:CRYSTAL) no longer valid, and my understanding of AfD is that prejudice to recreation only applies to recreation of identical material.  In fact, WP:CSD, under which recreated material would be deleted, mentions explicitly that recreated material should only be deleted "provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted".  Since I can't look at deleted changes you or another administrator would have to check to confirm whether or not this is the case. At any rate, I don't want to seem like I'm disagreeing with you since the result is ultimately the same.  I just wanted to make sure there weren't some hidden bureaucratic issues I should be aware of. :) --jonny-mt(t)(c) Tell me what you think! 14:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Recreating an article deleted at AfD using a completely unreferenced draft without any consensus-based discussion with the AfD closer or consensus-based discussion at WP:DRV and for which this discussion already shows disagreement in the appropriateness of such an action would seem overlook the spirit of the AfD deletion and that of CSD A4. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and placing the letter of rules, policies and guidelines over the spirit behind them is not the way to go. If you think it appropriate to recreate a delete article using a completely unreferenced draft for which it is not clear that the topic meets WP:N, please feel free to follow Steps to list a new deletion review. -- Jreferee    t / c  18:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's my point exactly, though. If you feel that the article in its current state does not cite sufficient sources or is otherwise deficient to the point where it would be deleted as a mainspace article due to content issues, you're perfectly entitled to that opinion.  Likewise, if you feel that the article has not changed significantly between the time it was nominated for AfD and now (as I mentioned, I can't check that myself), that's valid as well.  But I have to respectfully disagree with your assessment that it would deserve speedy deletion if it was moved to the mainspace on the grounds that the proper procedures haven't been followed to restore it as such--that, to me, seems a bit on the bureaucratic side and disagrees not only with the spirit but also with the letter of CSD and AfD policy. --jonny-mt(t)(c) Tell me what you think! 13:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. There can be a short article in mainspace, free of self-referential elements and based exclusively on the same reliable sources we would deem acceptable for any other new film at this level. There should then be a longer article in Wikipedia space dealing more with the interest factors for dedicated Wikipedians. Appropriate cross-links in the "see also"s or on talk, of course. Arguments based on the prior AfD/DRV are, as noted, no longer applicable and if I see a speedy on that basis I will probably reverse it. Most important is that we don't have an AfD result of "belongs in WP space" and an MfD result of "belongs in mainspace" and wind up with nothing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:46, 23 November 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.