Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:46, 19 February 2017

The Russian Bride

The Russian Bride (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

This is a non-notable movie, characterized by its producers as "ultra-low budget", that has not even begun principal photography. It does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NFILM, in particular WP:NFF, which states, "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles". Principal photography not yet begun, and is not scheduled until next month. It's WP:CRYSTAL to presume that once filmed and released, it will get significant coverage from unaffiliated independent sources. It's not clear that a theatrical release is planned (although the overcrowding page refers to a planned L.A. premiere); a DVD is planned, and it may well be a direct-to-DVD movie.

I'm going to be a little verbose here, given the prior PROD and the subsequent discussions with the principal editor.

I PRODded it about a week ago, and it was dePRODded by its principal editor, Lyrda (talk · contribs). I will note that in my PROD, I had construed its crowdfunding effort to be to raise funds to make the film. Lyrda has pointed out that the crowdfunding effort was not to raise money to make the film, but to pay for acting coaching for the child actress Kristina Pimenova.

That being said, there still is no indication of notability. Nearly all the references in the article are to material generated by the production itself: Reigning Entertainment, the production company; its Indiegogo crowdfunding page; a quotation of the film's press release at Horror Movies CA; the film's casting call notice at backstage.com; the film's "official newsletter"; and the film's facebook page.

There are three sources that are, on their face, independent of the subject, but provide no basis for notability: A paywalled Posh Kids Magazine article is cited for the proposition that the child-model who stars in the film is making a career move into acting; a decaymag.com article that reports on the crowdfunding effort, but appears to be just a blog; and the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs for the inconsequential fact that the production company does, in fact, exist and is incorporated in the state.

None of this adds up to notability.

The IMDB page for the movie has very little information on it; IMDb does not carry full entries for films in pre-production, pretty much for the same reasons Misplaced Pages normally does not.

The principal editor is a WP:SPA account, whose edits have concentrated on this article, a now-deleted article on its actress Kristina Pimenova, and that article's AfD. When I inquired as to a conflict of interest, she said no, and I take her at her word.

There's more discussion on the article's talk page, which may be informative.

I want to note that this AfD is not reflective on the principal editor or her work; it is merely an effort to limit Wikpedia's coverage to notable material. TJRC (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment: I did not write the deleted article Kristina Pimenova, which was in poor shape. Neither am I a single-purpose account. I have started two articles, edited and commented on ten others, and participated in project and help discussions. Not that there is anything wrong with editors focusing on a single topic, as proposer seems to suggest. Furthermore, to randomly suggest that just because a new user began at topic X, they must have a conflict of interest with topic X, is uncivil and no testimony of good faith. Can we please discuss the article without attempts to put the editor in a bad light? Lyrda (talk) 12:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment: IMDb carries whatever people enter into it and gets accepted. It does not distinguish in that regard between films by stage of development. There is more information in IMDb-pro, but IMDb is not put forward as the source of this article. Instead, there are nine other sources. Lyrda (talk) 12:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment: This is a low-budget film, not an 'ultra-low-budget film' whatever that may be. Proposer wants to suggest that this is an amateur project. It is not, this is a professional movie with notable, prize-winning producers and cast. Lyrda (talk) 12:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment: Proposer failed to notify Wikiproject Film even though participants are aware of this article. It is therefore unlikely that this proposal will attract sufficient attention from users familiar with notability and guidance relating to this topic. Lyrda (talk) 12:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

There is no requirement to notify relevant Wikiprojects when an Article for Deletion discussion is started. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

It is nonetheless the appropriate and civil course of action. Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion#After_nominating:_Notify_interested_projects_and_editors Lyrda (talk) 12:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• Keep Contrary to what proposer repeatedly suggests, I did not start this article gazing into the future. In my opinion the topic is already notable in this stage of development, based on the notability of the people involved and evidenced by sources included and not included (social media buzz) in the article. Lyrda (talk) 13:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
• Delete A film that may or may not be in production, supported by references that do not collectively help the subject to meet the General Notability Guideline. It may be a case of WP:TOOSOON - if the film is ever released, and if it gets a sufficient quantity of coverage in reliable, independent sources (not IMDB, Backstage or other self-published sources) then I look forward to reading about it here. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

  Backstage, Decay Magazine, Horror Movies CA and Posh Kids Magazine are all reliable, independent sources. At Backstage, a team of casting experts review each casting notice posted to ensure the quality and legitimacy of the project. Lyrda (talk) 12:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's a Casting Notice, which cannot be considered Independent by any stretch of the imagination. Would the casting notice be there if the people involved with the project hadn't written it? No it wouldn't. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Backstage reviews all notices and deletes entries of insufficient quality. That's what makes it independent and why I included it as a source, rather than e.g. exploretalent.com. Please note that there are three more independent sources as well. Lyrda (talk) 13:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

As you're clearly an editor with an undeclared Conflict of Interest, the time I'm going to spend responding to you is going to be very limited. You'll get a lot more time & good faith from me if you read WP:COI and declare your Conflict of Interest openly and honestly. Anyway, the sources: Source 1 - Company website - not independent. Source 2 - Indiegogo crowdfunding project - not independent. Source 3 - report on crowdfunding campaign written by someone who states they are an "independent movie blogger" - fails WP:RS. Source 4 - this source is not about the film. Source 5 - press release - not independent. Source 6 - casting call - not independent. Source 7 - newsletter written by the company - not independent. Source 8 - about the setting up of a company - not about the film itself. Source 9 - a Facebook post - fails WP:RS. That's really all I have to say about the sourcing - read through WP:RS yourself if you have any queries. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

So we're back at attacking the editor. Meanwhile, it's obvious then that you have no idea of Misplaced Pages's key concepts, nor do you seem familiar with the topic. You appear to be a hit-and-run deletionist, just like proposer, so I'm clearly wasting my time here. Lyrda (talk) 13:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't address what I've said. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

You didn't say anything coherent. Perhaps you could begin by explaining why you still think Backstage, who have been in business for 50 years, is not independent despite its review board. Lyrda (talk) 14:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd ask that you remain civil during this discussion - ad hominem isn't your friend here. Anyway, as I've already pointed out, the casting call posted by the company in Backstage is not an independent source because it was posted by the company. The fact that it has been checked by Backstage before they agreed to post it is not a factor. I've pointed out WP:RS to you twice now - you should read it before asking anything further about sources because it answers every possible query. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

You might want to stop attacking me, then. The available guidance on independence is WP:IS, an essay, not WP:RS, a guideline. Bottom line is that independence pertains to the source, not the content or how it got there. Backstage reviews all entries, that's all that matters. IMDb does not. Similarly, a collective of film reviewers that decide to build on some press releases, but not others, is also an independent source. Reliability is another matter. Backstage is reliable because it has a reputation of good fact-checking. Lyrda (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to fixate on whether or not a Casting Call is a reliable, independent source. The simple fact is, the General Notability Guideline hasn't been met. This isn't personal, so behaving like it is won't help matters. If you can improve the article without using unreliable, non-independent sources then do so. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 14:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

It would have been more civil for you to say "OK, you've convinced me about Backstage, how about the rest." Perhaps you could tell me why, in your opinion, Posh Kids Magazine is neither reliable nor independent? Also, notability of the topic is unrelated to the current state of the article, and it's not my personal burden either to improve it. Lyrda (talk) 14:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

You haven't convinced me. A casting call, written by the company producing a film, is never - under any circumstances - an independent, reliable source. I hope that clears up any apparent confusion. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Obviously the casting call itself is dependent, just like the press release (they're both still reliable though). The source, however, is not the casting call, but Backstage. Backstage is independent. How about Posh Kids Magazine? Lyrda (talk) 15:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I've already answered. "Source 4 - this source is not about the film" Exemplo347 (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be, as long as it's relevant to the topic. Lyrda (talk) 15:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Please can you link to a policy or guideline that supports this? Exemplo347 (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Can you? You're the one making a claim that goes against common sense. Hint: it's not in WP:RS. Lyrda (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• Note Clearly the article creator is taking this a bit too personally. I'd suggest stepping back from this discussion. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

  I think not. Look, you are perfectly welcome to simply state: "There is coverage, but in my opinion it's not significant enough." Instead you are continuously attacking the editor, and you come up with a series of questionable statements about sources that you are unable or unwilling to explain. Those are unacceptable tactics in a discussion, and should not be left unaddressed. Lyrda (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - going through the sources I came to the same conclusion as Exemplo347 above. Since they have already discussed each one of the sources I won't repeat what they already said; suffice it to say that neither WP:NFILM nor WP:GNG is met. --bonadea contributions talk 15:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - The current sources are of pretty little consequence, and basically universally don't count as independent, secondary or reliable by Misplaced Pages standards, and I'm not finding really anything online that does. I appreciate Lyrda's enthusiasm, but they probably need a bit more experience, since a lot of their argument rests on fairly run-of-the-mill misunderstanding regarding what these types of terms specifically mean on Misplaced Pages, versus what they mean in a more general sense. I would encourage them to visit the Teahouse if they have specific questions or need particular guidance, and to take some time editing on subjects other than those that they very likely would not know existed in the first place if they did not have some sort of conflict of interest. TimothyJosephWood 16:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

  I do not have a conflict of interest with this topic, and everything I've said about sources is supported by existing guidance. Lyrda (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

  I would appreciate an explanation as to why you deem none of the nine sources reliable, since WP:RS seems to indicate that they are. This has not yet been discussed. Above we have only talked about independence. Lyrda (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. This looks like a cut-and-dry case. Also, the article's principal editor doesn't (yet) have a complete understanding of WP:RS as has been made clear in comments above. Note that this deletion doesn't preclude the article coming back once reliable sources become available. Stevie is the man! 16:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

  I find it disheartening that people keep claiming that I don't understand WP:RS, yet nobody is willing to provide any insights. Surely, if sources are so cut-and-dryly unreliable, it should be easy enough to explain. Btw, if we end up with a conclusion to delete, please move it back to Draft instead, so I (and others) can keep working on it. Production starts in less than 3 weeks, new sources are bound to appear very soon. Lyrda (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

  I would ordinarily be happy to discuss, but from what I gather above, there seems to be too much WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT coming from your corner. Also, I am convinced you actually haven't read through WP:RS because barely anything you have stated reflects it. I recommend actually reading it and asking questions at WP:Help desk or elsewhere on points that don't make complete sense. As for userfying or moving an article to draft, that option is certainly available to you. But on this "new sources are bound to appear very soon", I'd like to know where you buy your crystal balls. :) Stevie is the man! 17:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• Note Please be aware that non-neutral canvassing appears to be taking place here. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Media and music)
• AfD debates