Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C.H.O.M.P.S

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 keep. JForget 02:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

C.H.O.M.P.S

edit
C.H.O.M.P.S (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)

Unnnotable film. Fails WP:NF and WP:N Prod removed by creator with statement that "it is notable" without providing any actual proof. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One does not prove non-notability, one proves it is notable. Has no significant coverage in reliable sources. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENTThat's just like, your opinion man. There's this thing called "Due Diligence" that we editors should perform prior to passing notability judgements. Here's a few sources to get you on your way [1],[2],[3],[4],[5], Here's the movie poster[6],Some more quotes [7], not a particularly WP:RS but still a list putting C.H.O.M.P.S. in top 8 movie robots [8] and so on. All found in 5 minutes. Nefariousski (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Google results are not signs of notability, and most of what you just linked to are NOT reliable sources. Being on IMDB is not evidence of notability, nor its being for sale. Existence is not notability. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide proof that AnmaFinotera did no research. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Keep Bad Movie and Bad Article but there are CLEARLY enough reliable sources to warrant an article even if, in its current state the article is only one sentance long. Maybe you should try to google the movie name before you bring up WP:N? When you nominate an article for deletion based on Notability you don't judge notability based on the state of the article but on the available material covering the subject of the article. If someone wrote a two sentance article on the president of a nation and didn't source it that doesn't mean the subject of the article isn't notable. Just look at the IMDB summary and Rotten Tomatos to get a feel for what the movie was about and who starred in it, toss in a few wikilinks and categories and you have a passable stub. Nefariousski (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Google results mean nothing and do not confer any notability. Significant coverage must be in actual RELIABLE sources. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Alan - talk 21:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest? you read This? Nefariousski (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPNic (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Although it's an extremely uninformative article, the film was reviewed by various sources (poorly reviewed, but reviewed) and would qualify under our guidelines. Canine HOme Protection System was what C.H.O.M.P.S. stood for (don't know what the "O" was for) and it had Conrad Bain and Valerie Bertinelli and Red Buttons. Might even have had a disco movie soundtrack. It's probably on someone list of bad 1970s movies. Mandsford (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We are here to expand knowledge, not shrink it. Add more to this article, but the very idea of deleting articles like this goes against why we are editing and creating pages in the first place.Donmike10 (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article clearly needs to be expanded, but notability of the film looks as if it's been established. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep of another in a repeated set of blantantly disruptive and pointy nominatios. My good faith that the nominator might have done any WP:BEFORE has been stretched to the limit. anyone? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SPNic. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -Bad faith nomination. Reliable sources exist to expand it and claim notability. ‡ Himalayan ‡
    • Comment: Disagreeing with the nomination does not make it a bad faith nomination. To correctly judge bad faith, you need to understand the motives of the nominator. It would be better to argue a keep position based on WP policy than on a judgement of the character or motives of the nominator. If you want evidence that this particular nominator acts in good faith, see the Afd debate (now archived) for Ride a Wild Pony, where the same nominator graciously accepted a keep decision based on a robust policy debate. I suggest that developing strong arguments to demonstrate the keep position is much better and more effective way of operating than attacking the nominator's motives. Wikipeterproject (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Considering that every one of the Afd debates that the nominator created yesterday so far have been prime examples of WP:SNOW I would disagree that there was no motive involved. When a string of related articles all created by one editor are put up for deletion by the another editor and overwhelming consensus says "obvious keep" then (assuming the nominator understands the afd process and common policies and criteria for deletion) it's not beyond the pale to think that they were bad faith noms. Nefariousski (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Response) but there is not always overwhelming consensus. Just read this page and you will see that there are opinions both ways. Read more closely and you will see that many of the "obvious keep" arguments have no basis in WP policy. It might not be well-understood, but the policy consensus as it stands actually makes notability rather hard to achieve and keep arguments should be able to demonstrate that the policy is met. "Overwhelming keep" arguments, in turn, should be able to demonstrate that there is lots of support in policy. But what we have here is a big struggle to find just one or two marginal instances of evidence. Hardly overwhelming - not if we stick to the policy, anyway... Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Response): The notability of the director does not, of itself, transfer to the film. Notability is not inherited (see WP:INHERITED. Your comment actually supports mention of the film in the article of the director - which is probably not what you are trying to say, I suspect! Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are many sales sites and the film (like almost every other fil ever produced) is on sites like IMDb and Amazon, but for the film to be notable under WP:NF it must be widely distributed and have "received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." I can't find a single full-length review - either online or in print archives, so this film fails under that part of the WP:NF criteria. It could still be notable if it it is historically significant, has won a major filmmaking award or is taught in at a tertiary educational institution that has a notable film program. If the article is to be kept, I think there is an onus on those arguing for its retention to find evidence against the consensus policy! Wikipeterproject (talk) 17:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a result of the monination, a number of reviews have been located and included as references in the article. I think there are now sufficient sources that meet the requirements of WP:NF to withdraw my support for deletion and cross over to the keep camp! Wikipeterproject (talk) 14:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-->
(Response): Not so stupid. The article didn't have any citations which demonstrated notability. Thanks to your research, we now have two, but we need to determine whether they are enough to support the notable film requirements. To do so, they must be full length and by nationally known critics. As pointed out below, one of the reviews is probably just a few paragraphs (I am guessing that from the word count) and I am not sure how long the other one is. Also - who is "Berg", the Variety reviewer. Is he/she nationally-known? As you can see, it' not always that easy to establish notability in accordance with the policy guidelines, but if we do so, we maintain the integrity of Wikipedia as a whole. And as such, I don't think the nomination is stupid at all. Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Stupid and disruptive. This article was nominated for deletion within three minutes of its creation. Minimal research on my part brought up reviews in two nationally-known venues, and two more articles to which I don't have immediate access. There are bound to be more. This song and dance about the article being poorly formed to start with, and now-- unbelievably-- word-counts of those national reviews, implies that some Wikipedia editors think they are better judges of what films should and should not be covered than do national critics. Besides being against the entire spirit behind Wikipedia editing, this violates NOR and NPOV, just to start with. No Wikipedia editor-- no matter how high his/her opinion of him/herself-- is a better judge of what films should be covered than are Variety, the L.A. Times, and The Hollywood Reporter (just for starters). Dekkappai (talk) 22:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Response): Not sure what NOR and NPOV have to do with this nomination. The fact is that there is a policy that defines notability - it's not the nominator or anyone else who determines that - it's a consensus within Wikipedia. It's interesting that most of the keep argument here are not supported in policy at all. And the word count is relevant when the criteria for notability specifically mentions *full length" article. I think there is an assumption that just because a film is mainstream and has a mention in an online movie database that it is automatically notable. But it's pretty obvious that the policy is more stringent than that. So the fact that we have only two reviews - one of them not exactly "full length", means that we may not actually have notability as defined by Wikipedia's own consensus policy. That's where we are today after more than a week of debate - and yet you think it's a stupid nomination? If it was, I think it would be much harder to argue for deletion. But by simply quoting the exact words in the policy, we are able to cast doubt on the film's notability - whether it's popular to do so or not. I, personally, have no vested interest in this at all - other than trying, in my small way, make sure that these debates are focussed on WP policy and not other factors. Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't more than a week into this debate. The article was listed for AfD on February 4, and mistakenly relisted on February 7, which made it look like a week had gone by. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Response): very true, but do you have a reason for it to be kept? Not liking the deletion nomination isn't a very strong argument to keep it either! Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Satisfies WP:N by significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, in the form of film reviews listed by Dekkappai and others above. The LA Times had what was, per the abstract, a 368 word review in 1979 by Linda Gross. This also satisfies the first provision of WP:NF by having been "widely distributed" and having received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." It does not have to satisfy ALL the provisions of NF, just any one of them. Edison (talk) 21:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Response): There are several WP:NF criteria and, you are right, the film just has to meet one of them. Being "widely distrubuted" and "received full length reviews..." are part of the same criteria, so a notable film must meet both, the way the criteria reads. Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Specific Response): The criteria calls for a "full length review". I am not sure if a 368 word article can be considered a full-length review? By my calculation, that would be no more than two average length paragraphs... Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Forgot to mention here that the screenplay was adapted into a 121-page juvenile novel by Scholastic.[10] Of course, I suppose, we as anonymous Wiki-editors are probably better judges than the professionals over whether that means the film is actually worth writing about... And maybe they used a large font, cutting down on the word-count... Dekkappai (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response: With all respect, Dekkappai, I think you may have missed the point. We all (you included), as Wikipedia editors, can and will decide whether it's worth writing about in Wikipedia. We've developed policy - by consensus - that defines exactly what we will include and what isn't to be included. That's why we debate these things in the context of policy and not on an emotional or personal level. Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I remember the film and while it was horrid...not even so bad as to get Z-movie status but more like...Why...just why? This in itself does not make it notable, however saying that a critic was not nationally known...well there are nationally known critics today (Richard Roeper comes to mind) who were still in school in 1979. Hard to judge a critics notability in what is basically web prehistory.UnseemlyWeasel (talk) 01:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The critics cited in the article wrote for Variety and the Los Angeles Times. Those publications judged them worth hiring/printing. When Wikipedia starts second-guessing the experts, reliable sourcing has been substituted by the personal opinion of Wikipedia editors. Dekkappai (talk) 03:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A Google News Archive search indicates that the movie received more reviews than just Variety and the Los Angeles Times. There were also reviews in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and Newhouse News Service, just to identify two that are freely available online. (And keep in mind that relatively few newspapers have full text of articles from 1979 available online.) A national release and multiple notable people in the cast and crew should be sufficient to establish this film's notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Variety & LA Times were just what I could find on short-notice. I remember when it came out-- it was a national release. There was coverage all over the place. TV, radio, newspapers... AfDs like this just play on the difficulty of finding sourcing (which exists) on older, or foreign, or non-mainstream releases... Dekkappai (talk) 05:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good work! There's now enough evidence and sources for me to now support the article's inclusion, as per above. If nothing else, the nomination has ensured that the hard-to-find sources are being included, which is as it should be! Wikipeterproject (talk) 14:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the expansion. It seems to have cvoerage in reliable publicaitons which is what I count on for notability. Articles in the Los Angeles Times, Variety, various book sources etc make this easily within our guidelines I think. One fair use poster has to go though. We don't accept two.‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 21:09, 9 February 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/C.H.O.M.P.S&oldid=1300064162"