Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democrazy (film)

Democrazy (film)

Democrazy (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Democrazy (delete)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democrazy (movie) (delete)

This is a no-budget straight-to-video B movie (actually not even that, B movies were actually shown in movie theatres, this never has been as far as we can tell) written, produced, directed and acted by Michael Legge, whose notability seems not to spread much beyond his immediate circle despite prolific and protracted attempts to boost his profile - and that of "star" Eric Bruno Borgman - through Wikipedia. This article asserts that it won a B Movie Festival awar. Maybe it did, but there is no evidence this is considered significant. The sources cited are trivial, and not provably independent. At least one takes its text from IMDB, which is, of course, user edited (and indie films are usually added by their producers). It was previously deleted by Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Democrazy, which was created by Legge's fans before the film was even released. The primary notability criterion is: A topic is notable if it has been the subject of non-trivial coverage by two or more published works. Such sources should be reliable and independent of the subject. I see no evidence that this film has been the primary subject of any such non-trivial independent sources. There are notably bad films, often made by Ed Wood. There are (subjectively) bad notable films, <cough>Waterworld</cough>. This does not appear to be either. Guy (Help!) 16:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect Strictly of course based on the fact that the film doesn't yet have enough notability sources. From Googling things like Democrazy Legge film -Albarn -wikipedia (dropping Damon Albarn who seems to have an album of the same name), I can't see the notability yet. Maybe in time... redirect to the Michael Legge article for this. No harm in his films that don't pass notability on their own for an article to not redirect back to him, as he does pass notability, and people could likely search for those terms/films. - Denny ^(talk) 16:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • That's a whole other can of worms. His Sideshow Cinema article is a gathering-ground for deleted non-notable actors, a one-article end-run round dozens of deletions. Guy (Help!) 16:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    • What is the official policy on redirecting marginally notable, possibly searched-for things like this? Please let me know what policy controls this? Thanks! - Denny ^(talk) 17:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I can't see any possible reason for a redirect from a disambiguated title. —Cryptic 16:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    • People may search for the film title. - Denny ^(talk) 16:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
      • The existence of this article, and presumeably a redirect from it, won't help searching anyway. Go ahead, try it. Though there might be an argument for a dablink from Democrazy. (This article is about the actually-sort-of-notable album. For the direct-to-video zero-budget film Democrazy, see Michael Legge.)... —Cryptic 17:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The speculation concerning a conspiracy to keep the article can be ignored as irrelevant to this AfD. The article gives grounds for significance (an award), and I can see no good grounds for deleting it. The further demand that the article give grounds for the significance of the award is unprecedented, so far as I'm aware. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• That only works if the award is in some way significant. Apparently Fairy dishwasher liquid was awarded "dishwasher product of the year" - does that in and of itself make the product notable? Guy (Help!) 21:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• If true, yes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of who gave the award or whether the award is notable? --Minderbinder 21:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral for now. Article is certainly a subpage of the works of Legge, and notability is clearly established by winning awards, which is typically enough. I struggle if we can't find anything, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Almost total lack of reliable, independent sources. The only possible argument for notability is an award from B-Movie Film Festival, which, even setting aside that the article was written by one of Borgman's socks and is firmly within this walled garden, only barely squeaks past our article inclusion standards itself. (Consult its Google results, for example.) —Cryptic 17:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per User talk:Mel Etitis. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see any arguments for keep on that page. Perhaps you could be more specific. Guy (Help!) 21:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Think he means User:Mel Etitis ? - Denny ^(talk) 21:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Nothing's changed since the original deletion, as it's still a minor film -- essentially home movie -- and recreating it without benefit of review by those other than its original creators is a bad idea, whatever handwaving Mel Etitis does about it being "successfully argued for" when he undeleted it. And as for The speculation concerning a conspiracy to keep the article can be ignored as irrelevant to this AfD -- deliberately and misdirecting pejorative language aside, nooo, it's exactly relevant, as it's part of a years-long pattern of one or two editors to use Wikipedia to promote the noncareers of a couple of aggressive non-notable actors/filmmakers and their friends, including insertion of the principles and their images into other barely related or unrelated articles. This is merely another brick in the wall of an extensive walled garden. I was hoping to have the time to gather all the metastasized portions up into one big nomination, but if piecemeal is what it takes, it's a good start. --Calton | Talk 22:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

  First, it simply doesn't meet the speedy deletion criterion: it makes a claim to significance. Secondly, you seem to have misunderstood my comments, but let that pass. Thirdly, your sarcasm and aggression here sit uneasily with your finger-wagging over the "pejorative tone" of my comment. I'm doing what we're all supposed to do: treating each article on its own merits. Many of the articles to which you refer I either had nothing to do with or argued against; I think that this one meets the criteria. I'm neither part of the cabal of walled-gardeners nor part of the self-appointed task force of garden destroyers; I'm neither committed to rescuing all the articles nor to destroying them root and branch (though I realise that the mentality of such groups means that I'm bound to be lumped in with the "enemy"). I hold both approaches to be anti-Wikipedia. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Doesn't demonstrate notability, lack of non-trivial sources. --Minderbinder 13:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I've improved the B-Movie Film Festival article a fair bit. Michael Legge has won 3 awards there, but it's not quite a "walled garden", other winners include Rhonda Shear, Billy Zane, and Thomas Edward Seymour, people appearing at the awards include Debbie Rochon and Michael Berryman... it's a niche genre, no one involved would even object to having it be called a cult genre, but it is notable. Winning an award there is certainly an assertion of notability, we were able to convince Tregoweth to un-speedy-delete it based on that. Is it sufficient for inclusion? I tend to think yes, but then that's what we're here for. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)