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 snowball keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gummo[edit]

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

This movie does not appear notable and the article appears almost like an ad made by the director. It carries Neutrality issues as well. I believe they are too deeply rooted in the article to fix by a cleanup Reubzz (talk) 21:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A notable film by a notable director. Plenty of coverage. No reason to delete.--Michig (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: 229 Google Books results should be fairly convincing, I would have thought?--Michig (talk) 21:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michig, here are my expanded reasonings behind this nomination. I have used this policy as the basis for the nomination. It lists different ways to determine notability criterion.

First, the policy says the following sources do NOT meet the definition of independant, reliable sources:

"Media reprints of press releases, trailers, and advertising for the film. Trivial coverage, such as newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews," plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as "Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide," "Time Out Film Guide," or the Internet Movie Database."

Note that the only external links on the page include the Internet Movie Database and the website of the DIRECTOR. These are not independant.

Further I believe the other critereon are not met. The movie has not been "widely distributed" since it is an independant film. Thus, it is not something that is truely 'notable'. Further, it is certainly not historically notable and lastly it has not won a major award.

My concern is lastly that many sections act as a giant ad for the production, since it is not 'Wikified' and carries long areas of direct quotes by the director. Cheers! --Reubzz (talk) 21:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually looked at the results returned by Google Books. There's plenty there to demonstrate notability. The film has been distributed internationally. Independent does not mean undistributed. It was also included in several film festivals, winning several awards:

Winner of the Special Jury Award at the Gijón International Film Festival in 1997.

Winner of the Open Palm Award - Special Mention at the Gotham Awards in 1998.

Winner of the KNF Award at Rotterdam International Film Festival in 1998.

Winner of the FIPRESCI Award - Honorable Mention at the Venice Film Festival in 1997.

Perhaps the article needs some work, but there is no valid reason for deletion.--Michig (talk) 21:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please state how these awards meet the Wikipedia policy? Reubzz (talk) 22:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You said the film had not won any major reviews and there it shows it won awards at the Rotterdam International Film Festival and at the Venice Film Festival, that's what he was answering. If you're not familiar with the notability of these festivals then you really should keep away from entries related to film. --Breshkovsky (talk) 22:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:I think the film is much larger than you think Reubzz. I've seen copies of Gummo at blockbuster's before. It's a cult-classic. Not only are there a huge number of Google Book results, but a huge number of Google Scholar results on Gummo specifically. Endlessmug (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that makes it notable. Let us try to take out personal believes out of this as some people may of course believe this to be a very important movie. However I must stress that the policy quoted above would bar this as a notable article. Reubzz (talk) 21:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it wouldn't.--Michig (talk) 21:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well thats what the dispute is about, eh? :) Reubzz (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: 34 reviews. Joe Chill (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to that link, you will see that many of the reviews are from local (town) newspapers, and at least one of the reviews is blank. Reubzz (talk) 21:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CNN, EfilmCritic, Film Threat, Variety, rec.arts.movies.reviews, Combustible Celluloid, The Movie Boy, Entertainment Weekly, FIlm-U-Net, Cheap DVDs Advisor, The Digital Bits, Los Angeles Times, Box Office Magazine, Film Critic, and New York Times. Most of these were found in a quick Google search. Joe Chill (talk) 22:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[ec] Yes, they include such backwater rags as Variety, CNN, and the New York Times. Are you being serious?--Michig (talk) 22:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Going through each source - the CNN article is a summary. The eFilm critic is not a major critic, just a blogger it appears. Film threat is a summary as well. Variety as well appears as a summary. It contains some theme review but just a comparison. The rotton tomotoes article literally says the movie is boring and is not notable. Combustable celluloid, first a random website, second it has again a summary. The movieboy one is a random critic with another summary. Reubzz (talk) 22:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously don't understand notability and what a reliable source is. Joe Chill (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am simply following the specific process for film notability. It has a listing of things that would met the criteria. Reubzz (talk) 22:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have mainly been participating in AFDs for over a year and your belief is flawed. Joe Chill (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ridiculous nomination; following WP:BEFORE is a requirement, not an option. Suggest swift withdrawal. Skomorokh, barbarian 22:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources mentioned by people earlier in this discussion appear to me to meet WP:N. It isn't Star Wars, but it does appear to be a film that Wikipedia can use an article about. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I type in "Gummo" to LexisNexis Academic, there are 72 results, 8 from the New York Times. There is plenty of critical commentary out there on Gummo.Endlessmug (talk) 22:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep per Mr. Chill. The legend has saved another article (or so it seems). TheWeakWilled (T * G) 22:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of these journals/essays/books provide additional critical commentary from the scholarly world:

-Journals--

"The Future of Cinema: Harmony Korine" The Film Journal Adrian Gargett, 2002

"Dolce Stil Novo: Harmony Korine's Vernacular" CR: The New Centennial Review Thomas Carl Wall, 2004

"Harmony Korine's Gummo: The Compliment of Getting Stuck with a Fork" Film Studies, Issue 5 J.J. Murphy, 2004

'Seeing or believing' : Harmony Korine and the cinema of self-destruction New Cinemas: Journal of Contemporary Film, Volume 3 Duncan White, 2005

Indecipherable Films: Teaching Gummo Cinema Journal 47, No. 1 Jeffrey Sconce, 2007

"I Panic the World": Benevolent Exploitation in Tod Browning's Freaks and Harmony Korine's Gummo The Journal of Popular Culture, Vol 42 Jay McRoy and Guy Crucianelli, 2009

Genre-Fucking: Harmony Korine's Cinema of Poetry Wide Screen, Vol 1 Tom Austin O'Connor, 2009

--Books--

American Independant Cinema "Moonshine Maverick" Geoffrey Macnab, 1998 "The Beat-up Kid" Danny Leigh, 2000

The End of Cinema As We Know It "The Case of Harmony Korine" Robert Sklar, 2001

Purity and Provocation: Dogma 95 M Hjort, S MacKenzie 2003

New Cinematographers Jean-Yves Escoffier, 2004

New Punk Cinema "What is the Neo-Underground and What Isn't: A First Consideration of Harmony Korine" Benjamin Halligan, 2005

American Independent Cinema "The Moments Between: Decentred, Downplayed, or Fragmented Narrative" Geoff King, 2005

Endlessmug (talk) 22:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article could be approved, of course, but to recommend it for deletion because of this is nonsensical. You obviously have a strange vendetta against the film, as exampled by your responses above. --Breshkovsky (talk) 22:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Gummo is one of the most important films of the 90s. This nomination is absurd. Smetanahue (talk) 22:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, to stamp Gummo as an irrelevant, non-notable film would be to do so for all of Korine's work as Gummo is his most-popular film (aside from Kids which he only wrote). Are you prepared to mark for deletion all the articles regarding his other films? This seems absurd. Endlessmug (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even if the film didnt quite fulfil the specific criteria of notability for films (which i believe it does), the guidelines for notability are just that, guidelines. We can allow articles to stand on subjects that are marginally nonnotable by the letter of the guidelines, but have other factors which qualify them. For me, this being a work by a highly notable writer/director is enough. We do have articles for works, even early and obscure works, by highly notable people. AFD is best applied to "WTF" articles whose subject is bafflingly obscure, and is less effective when the subject is easily recognized by many people interested in the field, as demonstrated here. at 3 million plus (a number humans cannot directly comprehend, its so large), our standard for notability simply has to include this movie. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If i may be so bold, reubzz, i suggest you spend more time editing here at WP before attempting to make such a strong argument for deletion for what is obviously a notable (if obscure by some standards) film. the reviews cited are not summaries, they are reviews, and if variety and nyt review it, its notable, period. i appreciate your enthusiasm here, and passion for making sure notability is clear, but you need more experience, and the only way to get it is with time and effort (good start, though, if a little rocky) and i am by NO means an expert, having edited for only a year. please take this in the spirit offered, as encouragement to work here.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per pretty much everyone. Reviews in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and Entertainment Weekly should usually be enough to establish notability for a film. Furthermore, the fact that the film was the subject of a 14-page scholarly article published seven years after the film's release indicates continuing interest in the film. Problems with the article should be dealt with through normal editing rather than deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Film shows notability by reviews, coverage in books, and awards won. Also per Metropolitan90. ("IDONTLIKEIT" is not a good basis for deletion, but I must say that for its reported animal cruelty, I truly don't like it). Edison (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No animals were harmed making Gummo, just to tell you. The cat is not actually drowning. It's a movie. Endlessmug (talk) 23:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The film was the subject of debate on an episode of The X Factor when Simon Cowell chose a song from the film to be performed by one of the contestants during their "Songs from the Movies" episode. Hell, even if no one knew of it before, 14 million Brits have heard of it now! (YouTube clip of Simon referencing Gummo here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFP5AbRBkQE&feature=player_embedded ) Joellevand (talk) 19:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but needs to be re-written to meed Wikipedia standards. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 20:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW. Could an admin please close this to prevent any further embarrassment to the nominator? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Please! Endlessmug (talk) 23:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just getting ready to say the same thing. We're in a blizzard already! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been 5 days now! Endlessmug (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Odd nomination that I cannot help but think is related to Jamie Archer singing Crying (song) on the X Factor literally minutes before the nomination [1]. Snow please. Quantpole (talk) 16:24, 9 November 2009 (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.