Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steamin' and Dreamin': The Grandmaster Cash Story (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. The sense of the discussion was that the lack of sources, despite two weeks of consideration post-DRV, was too high a hurdle for the article to overcome. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steamin' and Dreamin': The Grandmaster Cash Story

AfDs for this article:
Steamin' and Dreamin': The Grandmaster Cash Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 April 9 was to reassess the article's notability (over the consensus found here) due to a possible increase in third-party sourcing. Procedural nomination only, best regards! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete and salt. Well, here we go again. I feel like I've rehashed this so many times it could rate an article in and of itself, but I digress. This is a non-notable indie film. This article was previously up for AfD and the decision was to userfy, so that the original author could fix the problems. He posted the article again and unfortunately, the fixes did nothing to change my mind that this is a small, locally-produced mockumentary that has received scant attention outside of Cork. It has been viewed at one local film festival, and while it was well-received there, that apparently is it as far as viewings. References have problems: three are from blogs and therefore not reliable, and three more are to publications that have no online link to the article, and therefore cannot be easily verified. In particular, Hot Press has an extensive archive but only turns up a passing mention of it as "Steamin’ + Dreamin’, available locally on DVD." Everything given seems to point to this as a local phenomenon, which is fine for notability of people and places, but not films. The revised version was nominated for AfD and deleted. The original author kept a copy in user space, then a few months later posted the article again in violation of Wikipedia policy; once we realized what had happened, it was speedy deleted. The author claimed ignorance of policy. He then submitted the article to deletion review, with additional references that he says prove the film's notability. After DRV, the article was then restored to main space for the purposes of this AfD, the fourth overall.
During this process, we have learned that the original author appears in this film, so therefore an obvious conflict of interest exists. It has been obvious to me all along that this author was on a seemingly never-ending campaign to garner publicity for this film by whatever means possible.
The references added do virtually nothing to change my view that this film is not notable. The additional references are not available online and therefore cannot be verified. The remaining references are largely blogs and therefore not considered reliable sources. References to the Cork Film Festival web site are either simple listings of the film's show times, or word-for-word copies of the film's publicity blurb from its own web site. References to The Pavilion's site show nothing at all about the film, and are useless.
I still maintain that this film does not maintain Wikipedia's notability standards for films. It has not seen widespread distribution - it has only been publicly shown at the festival, as best as I can ascertain, and maybe another small showing or two. The DVD is not available from anyone other than the producers, who are apparently selling it out of the back of their cars or something. We cannot verify anything amounting to widespread coverage from independent sources, nor that it has attracted significant attention from anyone outside a small area of Ireland. Even the new off-line references are just from local or regional newspapers, hardly widespread notices. In short, it's a small film that, despite a handful of good local reviews, is not notable by our standards, and this article is yet another attempt to promote it. I've seen enough. Delete this and salt it so we don't have to go through this a fifth time. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for not being notable enough for inclusion. --Bsadowski1 07:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at minimum until we have enough information to assess the new sources, which the article author has declined to provide. —Korath (Talk) 08:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The film has not received merely "local" reviews, as one editor has purported. It has received coverage in Hot-Press, one of the country's premiere publications, and one which is available throughout the world. I don't think it's far-fetched to say that this certainly refutes any claim of the film being a local phenomenon. Additionally, the film is available from a number of DVD and music shops around Cork City as well as Dublin, though this is not verifiable. I just wish it to be known that it is not being sold from anybody's car. Baron Ronan Doyle of Sealand (talk) 10:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: For those who came in late, the comment above is from the original author. He also appears in the film. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 13:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, very minor independent film with no recognition, awards, or significant coverage. Other than one or two list-type mentions of a screening (e.g., here), I can find pretty much nothing besides promotion.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 23:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep That the sources are local and non-online has nothing to do with WP:N. Nor does the topic need to meet subject specific guidelines if it meets WP:N. Sources seem acceptable. If there is serious belief that the coverage is fake, that would be different (and on-line scans of the articles would be useful). I'd also like to see the blog coverage removed, but that's an improvement issue, not a reason for deletion. Hobit (talk) 03:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd be very happy to provide scans of the articles, but considering they're behind a paywall I am somewhat concerned about copyright status. Baron Ronan Doyle of Sealand (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you e-mail them to me I'll post them somewhere and link to them here. Hobit (talk) 03:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Assuming good faith of offline sources, there are seven bits of reliable coverage there. Without them there are three, all from the same site, but that's still a reasonable amount of notability. It would be harsh to delete it purely because the coverage is local and the writer has a COI. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm a bit puzzled how three references which are all from the same site are enough to establish notability. How did you arrive at that conclusion? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the grounds that for a film to be worth an independent source covering three times over it must have some sort of popular appeal or notability. Perhaps this was wrong, but note that two other sources from different sites have now been added, one of which (this) gives fairly significant coverage. It's also reasonable to assume that the local newspaper articles cited as offline sources really exist, although lke you I am a little skeptical about the Hot Press stuff. Alzarian16 (talk) 01:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Citylocal listing is just that, an event listing that is barely a paragraph. I disagree that this constitutes "fairly significant" coverage. My skepticism stems from the original author's frequent, strenuous attempts to get this film onto Wikipedia, especially since he has an obvious conflict of interest. I still have this ol' reporter's hunch that his connection with the film's producers is stronger than he has let on to, given his persistence. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request to Baron Ronan Doyle of Sealand: Please scan the newspaper articles to your computer, and then upload them to Flickr or any other photo-sharing site. Then post the links to this AfD. Cunard (talk) 08:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I'll try to do that ASAP, but I may not be able to get my hands on them for a week or so. Baron Ronan Doyle of Sealand (talk) 13:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A week would be a bit too long as unless it's relisted the AfD will have been closed by then and the article could already have been deleted. Could you possibly speed it up a bit? It would do your case a lot of good if you could prove that the coverage exists. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, of course, but I don't actually have copies myself; nor unfortunately does the person on whom I'm relying own a scanner. I'll see if I can get a picture taken, perhaps? Baron Ronan Doyle of Sealand (talk) 13:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I should have images of those offline references uploaded by (perhaps) Friday. In the interest of keeping the discussion alive between now and then, may I ask opinions on the extent to which these might assuage the delete voters' concerns (if you'll be kind enough, for the moment, to take me at my word that this coverage does indeed exist)? Baron Ronan Doyle of Sealand (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under normal circumstances, I'd be amenable. But this has gone on so long, and you have had so many chances beforehand, that at this point I'd say no. Even with the evidence, I'm still not convinced that articles from a local newspaper are enough to prove the notability of a film. I still reiterate that this is a film with a small, highly localized following, and that you have a direct conflict of interest in violation of Wikipedia policy, and scans of newspaper clips aren't going to change my mind about that. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect, notability is not dependent on whether or not you've tired of discussing an article; nor does it depend on how often it has been debated. Yet again, you seem to be choosing to ignore the Hot-Press and TG4 references, both of which prove beyond doubt that the film has far more than a localised following. These two references in particular are key in demonstrating the film's wider appeal. Combined with the other references, we find ourselves with that which constitutes significant coverage in independent media. Baron Ronan Doyle of Sealand (talk) 20:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't judge the Hot Press reference until I see it, and see whether it is a full-fledged article or just an event listing, or something in between. Many of the references you've given are just listings of showings and such, and do not constitute "significant coverage.". I'm not clear which you are referring to as "TG4." - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course you can't judge it, but my question was regarding its likely effect on your opinion should it indeed be as significant as I've said. The references which only list screenings are there for that purpose alone: to verify that the film was indeed shown in the places the article claims. Those are not themselves evidence of notability; rather proof of the article's content. TG4 is a national television network which covered the film. It's all in the article. Baron Ronan Doyle (Sprechen mit mir) 17:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I see the TG4 thing now. I was looking for it in the references for verification. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment: Relisted to give the creator, Baron Ronan Doyle of Sealand, more time to scan the sources.

    If an admin disagrees with this relist, feel free to override it and close this debate as you see fit. Cunard (talk) 01:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks good. I have no issue with the relist, personally. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We've waited an additional week, and we've seen nothing more. How much longer should this go on? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it hasn't made it into the Irish Examiner, it's not significant Cork news. Stifle (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply The Examiner is hardly the standard of notability. Baron Ronan Doyle (Sprechen mit mir) 21:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I have to admire the author's persistence, but after eight months and four AfDs I can't help feeling we are being strung along while increasingly desperate attempts are made to scrape the bottom of the barrel for anything that might possibly squeeze past the GNG. Compare what we have here with points 1 - 5 in WP:NF#General principles to see how far we are from what is intended by the spirit of WP:Notability (films), which does not envisage that even films which have achieved a full release will necessarily qualify for an article. Also, though COI is not itself a reason for deletion, it is a reason for scrutinising the claim of notability with particular care, and the fact that the only person interested in having an article about this is one of the principals is, to my mind, an argument against its notability. JohnCD (talk) 21:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I'm not the only one who's voted in favour of the article! Also, what do you mean by principals? Baron Ronan Doyle (Sprechen mit mir) 21:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understood that you were one of the four guys who wrote/produced/directed/starred in the film. If that's not so, I apologise and wuithdraw that part of my remarks. JohnCD (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no no. I went along one day when they asked people to show up as extras for a concert scene. No problem! Baron Ronan Doyle (Sprechen mit mir) 22:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry guys, I haven't gotten my hands on the articles. I won't say that I expect to in the next day or two either. My apologies. I'm happy to userfy until I do get them, if that's what the next step should be. Baron Ronan Doyle (Sprechen mit mir) 21:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think userfying is even an option anymore. At this point, after all these AfD's and the repeated votes to delete, I can't imagine there being any future for this article, barring the highly unlikely event that is is nominated for an Oscar or BAFTA. I think most everyone else sees what I've claimed all along. If you can't come up with the sources that we can verify, then this article needs to go — again. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JohnCD's cogent arguments and per the lack of verification. If/when Baron Ronan Doyle is able to obtain scans of the sources, I invite them to contact me on my talk page so that I may evaluate whether the sources are sufficient to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Steamin%27_and_Dreamin%27:_The_Grandmaster_Cash_Story_(4th_nomination)&oldid=1148047864"