Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Truth in Numbers? (4th nomination)

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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Truth in Numbers

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. The article continues to violate the WP:CRYSTAL principle, and has for many years now. Since the previous nom for deletion (which resulted in no consensus) several other editors have unsuccessfully attempted to prod the article, unaware of the prior discussions.

The title of the film varies almost as frequently as the release date (which is, as of now, "2009" for USA distribution-- only 9 days left, think they'll make it?) Its nice that someone wants to make a documentary about Wikipedia, there are lots of books about it after all, but this one doesn't look like it is ever going to happen.

If and when this movie is ever released we can write up a valid article about it then. JBsupreme (talk) 18:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I meant to make the same nomination after the new year, but now is fine too. This film is just plain vaporware, and we don't do speculative articles on vaporware. If it were advertising a nonexistent film on any other subject, it would have been deleted some years ago. As JBSupreme says, if this film is ever released, then we can look at having an article on it. It hasn't been released, and quite frankly at this point one has to assume that it never will be. Continuing to host this speculation creates a serious problem with promotional content as well as violating NPOV (in that we are willing to host otherwise unacceptable content if its subject would cast us in a favorable light). — Gavia immer (talk) 18:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles." Niteshift36 (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has passed the previous AFDs because there is (just) sufficient coverage. This hasn't changed.--Michig (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We still don't have any evidence that the film's going to be made. If it ever gets made, then we can have an article for it. Otherwise, no proof of film being made = no article. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 20:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wikipedia does have articles and other pages about proposed entities, and that is good. Encyclopædia Britannica probably does also.

-- Wavelength (talk) 21:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The subject has remained upcoming for a long time and is still acting like a crystal ball without a release date. Martarius (talk) 01:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt: Plainly people are going to keep recreating this, and there's no need to have an article on something that doesn't exist, hasn't existed and - on form - isn't likely to exist. Clear WP:CRYSTAL violation, clear failure of WP:N, and it always has been. RGTraynor 07:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nonexisting, dubious notability. - Altenmann >t 20:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This confirms that not only has principal photography commenced but that the film was "in the editing phase" in February 2009, thus showing that the supposed WP:NFF violation doesn't exist. This gives a lot of good technical detail on how the film was made. There is further coverage here and here. The current article has been here since 2007 and in the 2 years and 3 months since then this AFD was closed as no consensus, and this AFD resulted in the community deciding on a Keep, making the 'delete and salt' !vote somewhat mystifying. If you want to put forward arguments for deletion based on our policies, feel free, but please be aware of the facts.--Michig (talk) 22:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Well, yes, I believe I'm aware of the facts. One fact is that the 2007 AfD closed with a Keep result due to your own assertion that the film was in post-production, yet it is apparently no closer to seeing the light of day today than it was two years ago. Another fact is that WP:NFF has two paragraphs; the one you leave out of your mention of a "supposed" violation is "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." Thirdly, your "further coverage" are all blogs, and the only one going into detail about this flick doesn't discuss the movie at all in favor of an indepth technical discussion of the cameras used. Finally, while you rely very heavily that one AfD closed as a Keep and another as a no consensus (with many Keep voters on that one likewise relying on the previous Keep), you leave out that two AfDs closed as Deletes - why are those results being ignored when claiming precedent? For nearly three years now the Keep proponents have pushed this as coming out Real Soon Now, and for three years there's been no sign of that happening. The nom said it right at the top: "If and when this movie is ever released we can write up a valid article about it then." RGTraynor 22:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Hmm? your links don't say what you think they say, or else you misrepresent them. [1] - a blog entry claiming the film was near completion in 2007. Those sort of claims, and their obvious falseness, are why one can't have any confidence in claims that it will be coming along Real Soon Now. [2] - a technical publication claiming that the film was near completion in Jume 2008 (again, not true). The meat of that source is the first two paragraphs - but see next source. [3] - a French language source claiming the film was near completion in March 2009 (still not true). Anyone who reads French is invited to compare the opening paragraphs of that source to the previous one - it obviously comes from a direct translation of some common source, probably a press release. Note that this source is also dunning for donations; a publication that's willing to pass along such direct appeals is also likely to have taken at face value the principals' claim that the film would be released. [4] - an article by "The 404 Podcast" claiming the film was near completion in February 2009 (it wasn't). Note that the same dunning for contributions appears here, down to the same dollar figures (indeed, the same dollar figures that were in the Wikipedia article). I've commented on what that means already, so let me make the other obvious point - if one is begging for contributions to complete a documentary on Wikipedia, it is of direct benefit in those efforts to have a Wikipedia article claiming that the documentary will definitely exist, for real, just read for yourself. I think your sources merely highlight the serious issues that result from giving this subject an indulgence we wouldn't extend to other crystal-ball promotional content. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful with accusations such as misrepresentation, such a failure to assume good faith is not helpful. If reliable sources assert that the film is in production we take it at face value unless given a reason not to. It's the sources that resulted in a keep previously, not any assertions by me. 'Notable per the notability guidelines' means that the film should have received significant coverage in reliable sources - the coverage is perhaps borderline but it does exist. Yes the New York Times blog is a blog, but a blog from a professional journalist at such a major newspaper is acceptable as a source of coverage, and my only claim regarding this was that it was "further coverage". The French source appears to me to be a news article rather than a blog, and '01' appears to be a professional technology magazine. I'm not sure why a source discussing in some detail the filming process and technology used should be discounted. I ignored the one AFD closed as delete (there appears to be some duplication in the previous AFDs listed above - there is one delete, plus some redirects), because it pre-dated the creation of this version of the article by 6 months, so has little bearing. --Michig (talk) 07:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"...we take it at face value unless given a reason not to" - the reason not to is plainly illustrated in your articles, which show the filmmakers announcing three years worth of near-completion. These assertions are no longer credible (the previously announced progress, which was plainly nonexistent, is a reason to stop giving them credibility), so we should not be giving the film an article based only on their repeated assurances that the film will exist. If the filmmakers announce more future dates, without evidence of any actual fim release, that only digs the hole deeper. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.