Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wolftime

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kevinw91 (talk | contribs) at 03:37, 9 September 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wolftime

Contested PROD. Delete as this production company fails WP:CORP. No verifiability from third-party reliable sources; all of three Google hits (merely searching for the title gives mostly irrelevant results) that point solely to this entity's Geocities website. WP:NFT and/or WP:VANITY may also apply per the intimate knowledge that they premiered [their] latest film, Silhouettes, at a Bay Area high school on September 7, 2006. --Kinu t/c 00:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the accusations that the article "Wolftime" as well as the article "Silhouettes" fail WP:CORP. I view them rather as descriptions of the endeavors of entrepreneurial teenage filmmakers, including the mentioned Kevin Walker. I also view it as irrelevant the the official website is hosted by GeoCities, since the company still has a domain name registered on the WHOIS database. Thus, I do not believe the mentioned articles should be subject to deletion. Keep in mind that Wolftime is an independent company, and likely doesn't make a profit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinw91 (talk • contribs)

I would like to mention that Wolftime has made three films, has won two awards in esteemed film festivals with three nominations. The score for their latest film was written by a professional film composer who has made collaborations with such names as Bill Clinton, Sophia Loren, and Antonio Banderas (see beintus.com). Wolftime Films is a legitimate company, and the article is in no way intended to be a sales pitch or a marketing ploy, since the organization does not make a profit. I view it as inadvertent prejudice that the company is marked as illegitimate based on the appearance and Google rankings of their site.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinw91 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete The company and film are not "illegitimate", merely non-notable. Seriously, these are films that only a tiny number of people will ever see or even hear of. The fact that a web search doesn't find any of them outside wofltime's geocities page says that pretty much no one has even taken notice of them, and that they, and their awards, are unverifiable. Wikipedia does not exist to help encourage or publicize unknown entrepreneurs, teenage or otherwise. Fan-1967 01:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Wolftime site receives over 60 hits daily as recorded by both Yahoo! statistics and Google Analytics statistics, and the site has been viewn by users from around the world. The films have been watched an appreciated by hundreds, who access the site via the domain wolftime.com. I cannot comprehend why one would take so much time and effort to try to remove a legitimate article from Wikipedia. There is nothing abusive or market-driven in the article, and I believe the users pursuing the deletion should respect this independent production company.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinw91 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment: Respect has nothing to do with it. Verifiability is a policy on Wikipedia, and WP:WEB and WP:CORP are consensus-driven guidelines for inclusion of articles on websites and companies. You are welcome to address the points addressed therein, and then (more imporantly) provide verifiability through reliable sources indicating that the site or company meets one or more of these points, in order to persuade others to recommend keeping this article. --Kinu t/c 01:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I request the cause of your pressing concerns for the deletion of the Wolftime-related articles? Perhaps some compromise can be made.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinw91 (talk • contribs)

According to the Wikipedia guidelines: "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations..." Considering the vast audience of Wolftime Films, I believe it complies with the Wikipedia requirements for notability.

The films have been published outside of Wolftime.com in numerous notable film festivals.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinw91 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Otherise, discussions are extremely hard to follow. The links that have already been posted, WP:WEB and WP:CORP, explain the standards. Your company, website and films do not meet the standards. No press coverage, no public attention, no verifiability, no notability. I'm sorry if you feel that's harsh. Fan-1967 01:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable and per nom. By the way, the films have been "published in film festivals"? How does that happen? Is that an attempt to make "shown at film festivals" sound like it meets the cited criterion? Hmmm... - W guice 01:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do feel that this whole debate is harsh an illogical. Would somebody please explain why these users are so adamantly concerned with this matter. The inclusion of the articles would not harm anybody (except perhaps the users who care so much about deleting them). Wolftime films has been viewed by public audiences, included in a number of publications regarding film festivals the movies have appeared in, including city government publications. Kevinw91 01:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cuz a free encyclopedia is a good idea, but a free encyclopedia with quality control is an even better one. - W guice 02:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a film festival screening would qualify as a published work. Kevinw91 01:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's end this debate, keep the Wolftime article, and as a compromise delete the Silhouettes article.

  • Comment: Claiming that an article would not harm anybody is an oft-rehashed tactic for retaining articles that do not meet the goals of the project, which is to be an encyclopedia. Verifiability is a policy. You have been provided sufficient information to indicate what these articles need for them to be kept. You have made claims to notability; so source them. I apologize if that sounds harsh, but if these articles cannot meet that core requirement, then they will most certainly be deleted. --Kinu t/c 01:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is not just your company. There are thousands of aspiring filmmakers trying to gain some exposure by listing their short films here. Films which may have been screened at a festival or two, but have hardly been reviewed anywhere, written up anywhere, noticed anywhere. Most have received more notice than your films, which seem to have received none at all. Wikipedia does not exist to promote unknown people or enterprises, but to document those which have already become notable. Fan-1967 02:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the claim by Kinu that the article violates WP:VANITY is ad hominim, a court term proving that "an argument is an attack again against the person." I am afraid to say that the user does not have credibility in the debate, considering this serious violation of argumentative ethics. Kevinw91 02:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my name is Kevin Walker (I apologize if it seemed that I was trying to hide that). Nice to meet you. Allow me to again reiterate that this is not an unknown company, nor an unknown film. They have received a great deal of attention by hundreds of people. Perhaps I can get you to see the latest one, "Silhouettes?" Kevinw91

  • Comment. You've spent enough time trying to do that in the article itself. By the way, someone saying the company or film fails WP:VANITY isn't an ad hominem attack. S/he's not calling you vain, s/he's referring to a policy (that s/he didn't write) which happens to bear that name. What's the argumentative ethics term for being really disingenuous again? - W guice 02:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that s/he cited a Wikipedia requirement against vanity. Thus, s/he is citing the article I wrote as vain. Kevinw91

I would like to draw attention to one of my previous comments supporting Wolftime as a legitimate company enjoyed by the public and, just like the other filmmakers you mentioned, has been featured in "one or more film festivals": Wolftime has made three films, has won two awards in esteemed film festivals with three nominations. The score for their latest film was written by a professional film composer who has made collaborations with such names as Bill Clinton, Sophia Loren, and Antonio Banderas (see beintus.com). Kevinw91

Let me mention as well that the article was not trying to market "Silhouettes." W guice, "You've spent enough time trying to do that in the article itself." That is certainly an ad hominim, sarcastic attack. Kevinw91

I am arguing for the inclusion of the articles because it is my life ambition. You are arguing for their deletion because you feel contempt against my company. Can you please expain why. Kevinw91

  • Comment Even if we were to set notability totally aside (which we won't), the #1 ironclad rule here is Verifiability from Reliable Sources. That one's non-negotiable. We have here an article written by you, about your company, and the only source is a website created by you. No other source is available to verify that these films have been shown anywhere. Fan-1967 02:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you the world will be the same place if you let this go. I urge you to spend time on more important matters (matters I would be attending to if it weren't for this debate). Keep in mind that any profit that Wolftime makes goes to charity. By the way: http://berkeleyvideofilmfest.org/ search the page for "Teen Planet." I'll look for more verifiable links. Kevinw91

That picture is of me and my co-director receiving an award in front of hundreds of people in a UC Berkeley auditorium for the screening of "Teen Planet," a Wolftime film. Though it's not a great picture of me (lol). Kevinw91

Oh, I'm sorry, was that last comment a violation of WP:VANITY? Kevinw91

Here is a link for you to view "Silhouettes." I hope you enjoy it. I apologize for taking two and a half hours of your time, but I just want you to take this company seriously. http://www.geocities.com/wolftimefilms/media/films/silhouettes/silhouettes_medium.mov Kevinw91

  • Comment Taking you seriously is not the issue. Wikipedia does not exist to promote unknown ventures. Period. The result of this AfD was never in doubt from the moment it was posted. Continuing this discussion won't change it. Fan-1967 02:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can't be serious! I have given you a link to verify the company. I have even offered a compromise. Can we please close this discussion, I have a lot to do regarding this film. It has an estimated site circulation of 220 people in the next three days surrounding the film's premiere. Kevinw91

Keep in mind that the purpose of Wikipedia is to have lots of articles detailing practically everything in the world. This includes independent production companies, and in my case, a legitimate, verified company. Would you please give me your phone number if you wish to debate this in person. Kevinw91

  • You're mistaken. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and the link to our standard for companies has been repeatedly posted here. You've verified that one of your films was shown. Doesn't make it remotely notable. Nobody in the press wrote it up or commented on it. I'm sorry if our continuing this conversation gave you any impression that there was any chance for the articles. There never was. Fan-1967 02:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Nothing further (such as a link to a encyclopedia policy or notability guideline) can be suggested that has not already been mentioned at least once herein. Whether you choose to take those suggestions or simply ignore them is up to you. I am recusing myself from the remainder of this discussion. Best of luck in the future. --Kinu t/c 02:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How am I to verify that the films have been mentioned in print? What I am dealing with is evil bureaucracy. Unfortunately, I have lost a great deal of respect for the Wikipedia system because of this. Again, if you truly care so much about removing an insignificant article about Wolftime Films, please give me your number so we can talk in person, otherwise we will be here all night. Kevinw91

  • No we won't. I have other things to do tonight, and I'll repeat: continuing this discussion will make no difference. We have policies. You don't like them. That's it. Best of luck. Fan-1967

Yes. I would consider this conversation to be harsh. Kevinw91

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wolftime&oldid=74652508"