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 of the debate was Delete. Kusma (討論) 02:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crime Fiction[edit]

Yet unreleased student film hyped with fake press releases which "features" Rikki Lee Travolta (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rikki_Lee_Travolta. Delete, if it becomes notable we can recreate it. Arniep 22:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does have a website here (it cites it's Wikipedia article in the press section [1]). Arniep 22:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It also has a trailer here which shows Rikki Lee in all his glory (the blonde bellhop) (note having a trailer on your own website doesn't make a film notable). Arniep 23:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's also gotten considerable press in Chicago, including from Time Out. I honestly see no reason why this article could be deleted. --

Kicking222 23:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say it's not a student film, on the press page it says:
"University of Chicago students take a stab at bringing filmmaking into focus at the institution with Crime Fiction"
"The film’s creators, who are students at the University of Chicago".
Arniep 23:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The TimeOut article seems to have been deleted. Arniep 00:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, we should not list any film that is not released as (i) it is just encouragement to use Wikipedia for promotion, and (ii) we cannot know whether a film will become notable or not until it is seen by the general population. Arniep 00:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a fair point. To my mind, if the film gets a distribution deal, it graduates from "student film" to "indie". That ok? Thatcher131 02:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that student film is restricted to class. Indie deals with an actual deal. You can actually make film for the love of it (i.e. Channel101.com and Channel102.net). Yanksox 02:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is it normal to have articles for non released films that have had no reliable press coverage? Arniep 00:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The question of a score seems less important than the question of whether in fact there is a distributor. Fan1967 15:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. No convincing argument to delete other than very weak, subjective notability arguments. Any film project that has this many people involved deserves to be noted here. I have said many times that artists of all media a underrepresented here; I just don't see the issue with the article staying. Aguerriero (talk) 16:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]

  • Change to delete per Arniep. Aguerriero (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You don't think there's an issue with the fact that the movie hasn't been released and there's no way of knowing whether it will be? Fan1967 16:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't. I wouldn't expect a film that has apparantly just recently gone through post-production to be released at this time. The Web site for the production company says that it will premiere this fall, which is a reasonable schedule for any film. A film that has professional actors cast, has a score written and recorded by a symphony orchestra, and has all of the other necessary crew is not easily abandoned - it has a producer, an insurer (required by the Screen Actor's Guild and other unions) and most important, a contract dictating its release. Aguerriero (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We see indy films here all the time that have been completed but never released. That's why they schedule all these festivals, looking for a distributor. Where do you see indication of a contract dictating its release? Fan1967 16:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you were familiar with the workings of the film industry, you would know that no actor in the Screen Actor's Guide can work on a movie without a contract. The contract ALWAYS stipulates the release of the film. In this case, the article cited in the comment below (strangely, Arniep alleges a hoax and then posts evidence disproving his allegation) indicates the use of an Experimental Contract which stipulates that the actors don't get paid until the film is distributed. You confuse the use of the terms released and distributed. A film is released when it is screened. This film will be screened barring extreme circumstances, and plenty. If a distributor decides to put the movie into theatres and/or DVD, that is another thing - and that decision is based on the potential commercial viability of the film. So what you are really arguing here is that art forms that are not deemed marketable by large corporate distributors are inherently non-notable and should therefore not be covered in Wikipedia. Am I correct? Aguerriero (talk) 19:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Art that is not seen by more than a few dozen people is not notable. That is correct. Fan1967 19:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, and I respect that opinion even if I disagree. I just wanted to clear the table of "to release or not release" and hoax discussions and get the real issue out there. If you can build a consensus that art has to be seen by a significant number of people to be notable, then so it shall be. Aguerriero (talk) 19:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if there was some confusion over terms. I suspect to most people, "release" means more than a few showings. The main point, I believe is that if a movie is not distributed, and 99% of the country will never even have a chance to hear of it, much less see it, it can't be regarded as notable. It's not a judgement on the quality of the work. Fan1967 20:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look, there is good evidence that these students have deliberately conducted a hoax campaign of inserting a large amount of false information to Wikipedia and releasing false press releases as part of a hyping campaign. We shouldn't have any articles on anything minor that hasn't been released full stop as it's just an encouragement to use Wikipedia for that sort of manipulation. This article [5] states that the film was directed by Will Slocombe of the award-winning student film “Stoke Mechanics”. Google shows no results for any film of that name or any award it supposedly received (which would be expected if the film or award were of any significance). Arniep 17:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What good evidence? Please provide sources and proof. Aguerriero (talk) 19:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Last month there was a lot of sockpuppetry over the AfD for Riki Lee Travolta, who is in this movie; and Arniep has found blog posts by the creators of the film that he believes shows they were using wikipedia to hype the film. I'm not (entirely) convinced but more importantly it's an ad hominem attack; judge the article on its own merits. There doesn't seem to be a specific notability guideline for films. So it comes down to whether you believe an unfinished independent film that has not (yet) been shown at a notable festival and does not (yet) have a distribution agreement should have an article here at the present time. If instead of notabilty you simply wish to consider verifiability, the film has no Lexis/Nexis hits (even in Illinois regional newspapers) and the only sources currently available are IMDB and the U of Chicago student newspaper. Thatcher131 19:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly-Wikipedia should not be used to market/hype unreleased products with no real proof of notability, especially when there is evidence that there is campaign of releasing false info to hype the product. Arniep 20:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This from an interview with local Chicago website the Chicagoist [6]:
"Were there any worries about posting up so many stories about conflicts on the set? Will: No. If Apocalypse Now, The Godfather, Gangs of New York, and Citizen Kane are any indication, breathless stories about actor-infighting (and insleeping), directorial egomania, and suit skepticism all sell newspapers, which in turn sell movies.".
All their hoax press releases are documented on their blog [7], [8], [9], many of which mention Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rikki_Lee_Travolta and the hoax book Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/My Fractured Life, here are a few bits of hype documented on their blog:
"Amazon.com is offering the specially priced package of "My Fractured Life" by actor Rikki Lee Travolta and "The Kennedy Curse: Why America's First Family Has Been Haunted by Tragedy for 150 Years" by best-selling author Edward Klein to provide a complete look at the United States version of royal families from Hollywood to Washington DC.".
"As for what else is transpiring, I can confirm that the producers are deathly scared of the "Bourne" films and their impact, and are hoping to emulate their style. That means: Young Bond. Look for an actor in his late-20s/early-30s, possibly Australian (Travolta is Australian)... and no, it ain't Alex O'Lachlan...".
"According to a source in the Screen Actors Guild, ponytailed actor Rikki Lee Travolta of the well known entertainment family was ushered from the Chicago set of 'Crime Fiction' and flown to London for a closed door screentest for what is only being described as 'a franchise action role.'"
"Long compared in the media for their long golden hair, athletic builds, and porcelain features, models Fabio and Rikki Lee Travolta appeared for photographers together during promotional launch of clothing line in Chicago."
"From the NY POST to Asian press, a rumor has been reported that George Lucas and Steven Spielberg have used digital technology to create a Computer Graphics Imaging (CGI) movie star named Rikki Lee Travolta. Rikki Lee Travolta, a real actor and best selling recording artist preparing to work on a movie directed by Michael Dorn, responds to the gossip in a live press conference."
"Holy crap. The Travolta-qua-Bond story has legs:"
Arniep 20:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I really appreciate the time spent and you've convinced me (and probably anyone else) that the filmmakers lack credibility. I will change my vote to delete because I think it's clear we can't take anything about the film at face value. Aguerriero (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2006 (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.
More