Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mars Roberge: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:18, 29 April 2024

Mars Roberge

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Biography with no evidence of notability, but that has persisted for quite a while. Sadads (talk) 01:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete: Not enough coverage to meet film notability, this [1] and a review [2] on a site I don't see listed as a RS over at Project Film [3]. Oaktree b (talk) 02:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Canada, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep: Director of at least 2 apparently notable films that received coverage, so that WP:DIRECTOR is met in my view. Trimming the page seems necessary, though. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[]

I'd truly like to know which of the WP:DIRECTOR criteria are met: (A) an important figure...widely cited by peers or successors Nope. (B) originated a significant new concept, theory, or technique None that we're aware of. (C) created -or played a major role in co-creating- a significant or well-known work There are 2 films directed by Roberge that have Wikipedia pages of their own but that does not mean that their director is worthy of an article himself. First of all, we need independent notability, and, segundo, the films might be Wikinotable but they are certainly not some "significant" work. And (D) [his] work has become a significant monument, been part of a significant exhibition, won significant critical attention, or been represented within permanent collections No, no, no, and no. -The Gnome (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[]

+1 -- I don't see any of those criteria being met in my current reading of the article, Sadads (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep per Mushy Yank. Marokwitz (talk) 12:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[]

Please note, Marokwitz, above response to Mushy Yank that the criterion invoked clearly and explicitly does not hold. -The Gnome (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete. Subject fails WP:GNG and is not saved by WP:ARTIST. Wikipedia is not a directory of everything. Nor is it a collection of indiscriminate information. Completists, and I am one, please look elsewhere! -The Gnome (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[]
~~I'm wondering if this article is getting edited with a bot or an outside script rather than by a person doing normal edits. Please see the major contributor's talk page.~~ I am wondering why he continues to add information, mark every edit as "minor" despite several warnings. ~~This suggests script driven editing.~~ Graywalls (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep I totally agree with Mushy Yank. Although an underground producer and filmmaker - he is still well known in the film industry. See e.g. his IMDB profile. GidiD (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[]

IMDB can often be used as a source of information but not as proof of notability. IMDB offers, just like Wikipedia, audience-created content. What Wikipedia demands are not reputations but numerous, significant, independent, third-partysources. You are totally welcome to locate and post them up and make people change their minds. -The Gnome (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[]

Actually WP:IMDB is WP:UGC and generally trash and unacceptable as a reference. Graywalls (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[]

You are both right. Mea Culpa. GidiD (talk) 08:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[]

Care to perhaps revisit, then, your above suggestion, GidiD? -The Gnome (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[]

Watch this list, Please, if there is a good intention, a prior, help me integrate then into the article. מתיאל (talk) 09:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep: Mars Roberge is an emerging voice and the l.a underground filmmaking scene, and also won some prizes and gained some good reviews and recognition Fabiorahamim (talk) 18:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[]

Any sources you can provide to support the above? -The Gnome (talk) 11:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[]

See External links מתיאל (talk) 12:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל[]

And also the two articles about his film with stating prizes and nominations. מתיאל (talk) 12:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[]

But there's still nothing about the director himself! And the "external links" section is irrelevant to notability. -The Gnome (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[]

A list of further reliable sources will be uploaded to the talk page of the article tomorrow. If people will google him (And other artists) and also see the interview with him on Youtube and put the energy into that, instead of rushing to delete, Wikipedia will be a much better place. מתיאל (talk) 20:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל[]

Look here below. מתיאל (talk) 09:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete. per Graywalls and The Gnome Priscilla256 (talk) 06:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[]

I must say that I am shocked by the enthusiasm of some participants to delete an article about a real film director. Erasing artists is something typical of dictatorships, 1950s style. Have you seen his movies? Is a director who makes kitsch films and is more successful worthy of value? The high-quality and less popular director has greater historical importance and that's what Wikipedia is for. Not for censorship or promoting kitschy pop. Nor does it matter the identity of the author of the entry and what his editing style is. Only relevant arguments. There are criteria for evaluating works of art and his films certainly meet them. For a better world, we need to create a community that promotes quality culture and deals with quality criteria. A community that acts for noble motives only! מתיאל (talk) 09:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל[]

I find your comments sad and insulting. I reject your accusation of "enthusiasm" as a motivator for my opinion. This verges on a personal insult, because it is presented in tandem with your insinuations about me or others with whose suggestions you do not agree as supporters of "dictatorships." I'd greatly appreciate if you retract these personal attacks and concentrate on the discussion about the issues at hand.

As to your claim that this "director has greater historical importance and that's what Wikipedia is for", I'm sorry but that is just your personal opinion. Wikipedia is not here to assign historical importance on the basis of personal opinions. I could actually agree with you about the person's importance! But personal opinions about notability do not matter in the slightest in Wikipedia. (I'm sure you're aware of this.) We need sources. Wikipedia clearly and explicitly does not aspire to be a "complete" encyclopaedia, such as Britannica, or other such. Wikipedia is written by the public, essentially, on the basis not of contributors' personal opinions or expertise but on the basis of third-party, independent, significant sources. "Noble motives" are what has brought all of us here to contribute but they're not the decider on notability. -The Gnome (talk) 11:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[]

I didn't meant to offend anyone. I suggest that the people who are trying to delete him, will watch his movies before they decide. There are critics, and bloggers who are hardcore movie fans who liked his movies and wrote positive and detailed reviews about them, out of love for cinema and this is a sufficient indication. מתיאל (talk) 11:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל[]

Another thing, when people (not you) write nasty things to me on my page and act like bullies and work to remove an article about an artist who has proof of his successes, how should that be interpreted? There is a behavior of some users that is necessarily forceful. Why remove an entry on a film director? This is beyond my moral perception. מתיאל (talk) 11:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל[]

The historical importance is not only my opinion, i have stated all the true cinema lovers. And Also, if we lose the criteria, then only "The market" and financial success will be the criteria, and this is a death sentence for art. מתיאל (talk) 12:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל[]

Source? Industrial Insect (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[]

See here below מתיאל (talk) 09:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[]

My last piece of humble advice: For any personal attacks in your user talk-page or anywhere else, you should submit a complaint against the miscreants. This decreases the noise and helps the Wikipedia project. As to your suggestion that only those who have seen the subject's movies can have an opinion in this AfD, that's patently absurd and I hope that upon some further thinking, you'll see it too. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[]

How do I file a complaint about him? About the other thing, doesn't it make sense that only film experts will write about movies and only music experts will write about Music etc? A list of further reliable sources will be uploaded to the talk page of the article tomorrow. מתיאל (talk) 20:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[]

By the way, the offender has already deleted his bad slander. מתיאל (talk) 09:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[]

Please prove me that Assume good faith is the right way מתיאל (talk) 09:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל[]

A list of sources

third-party, independent, significant sources! Prosecution of artists is unacceptable!!! מתיאל (talk) 09:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל

You are again engaging in personal characterizations, calling editors "prosecutors"! Whatever the motive might be for such persistent behavior, it is unacceptable. You are already taking up too much of this discussion, so it's evidently advisable to step away, as I will do too, if I do not have to address some further input from you. -The Gnome (talk) 12:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[]

Forensics on the new avalanche of links:

I took the liberty of numbering your list.

#1 is the artist's agent who's simply promoting their client. Come on! #2 is an entry in the list of all participants in a certain film festival. #3, #10, #12, #13, #22 are interviews, and we've already been through this; interviews are not, on their own, evidence of notability. #4 is a Netflix listing of every person under the sun connected, however remotely, to that streaming service. Same goes for #5, a MUBI listing; all we get from these listings is proof that the subject does exist and is indeed an artist. #6 looks like a joke but it's not; it's our subject's Rotten Tomatoes page, which reads, in its entirety : "Highest Rated: Not Available. Lowest Rated: Not Available. Birthday: Not Available. Birthplace: Not Available." What possessed you to include this I have no idea - it's actually evidence of non-notability.

#7 is a write-up by a fellow up-and-coming artist on his blog; not a source for notability. #8 is the IMDB entry and, per WP:NFILM, IMDb is not considered a reliable source for proving notability. #9 is a glowing write-up by our subject's sister. Do you truly count siblings as independent sources? #10 and #11 are yet more typical listings. #14 is a write-up by a "production services" company related to our subject. #15 is a review of Stars. #17 is yet another enthusiast's blog entry. #18 is one more listing/announcement. #19 is the same as #14. #20 is a review of Mister Sister. #21 is one more interview, this one of a bunch of people, among whom is our subject. #22, #23, and #24 are all YouTube interviews. Enough.

I am raging, this is not fair, especially about 7, so what, it is a good review, and what was written by his sisters?!? Youtube interview are media, it is not videos made by him. You can't pass up 15 and 17, they are legitimate film reviews by true film lovers. All I ask for is some fairness!!! מתיאל (talk) 09:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל[]

Assuming goodwill

Sorry, as a community we must help each other and not fail each other. I get a lot of hard time here, instead of helping. מתיאל (talk) 09:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל[]

Further sources