Caramelx129

I Survived BTK

Hi, you can sign your comments automatically using four tildes ~~~~. Lots of problems. Although the deletion was for copyright, since Imdb claims ownership of its content, there are other issues.

You need to provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines for films. Note that self-editable sources like Wikipedia and Imdb are not accepted as reliable sources. Your article was almost entirely about the incident, not the film. The incident may be notable, that doesn't mean the film is. You need to dump all the stuff about the incident, just a short synopsis of the plot. The technical stuff at the end is fine, but there is nothing to show that the film is notable (box office, sales, awards). As far as I can see, this is a home-made film shown in one cinema in Wichita as a one-off charity event, not exactly The Artist. I may be wrong, but it's for you to show the film is genuinely notable Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of I Survived BTK for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article I Survived BTK is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Survived BTK until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 07:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Conflict of interest notice

{{subst:I Survived BTK}}Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• I just wanted to emphasize what I wrote on the article AfD entry. It's not against COI to edit your own articles but it is HIGHLY discouraged because it's so hard to be neutral. If you need or want to have anything else in the article edited or added, please go through one of the more experienced editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film or post on the article's talk page. The issue with the page is that there were a lot of things on the site that weren't properly sourced or taken out of context. This is where an experienced editor will come in handy. I'm willing to help, but I have school and am not on here as much as I used to be.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Reply

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to revert any of the edits for the reviews back to what they originally were. Let me explain: the reviews that previously listed were all cherry picked to be the most positive even when the articles themselves weren't necessarily positively reviewing the film. In the "what do I know" review you mention, the reviewer's intention was to say that he didn't really like the film and the remark afterwards was sort of tongue in cheek about how the film was semi-popular but he didn't really care for it. As for it being negative, it's actually not that negative of a review and I did make sure to put down what he had praised about the film. I can't help but feel that you want the remark added to the end in order to discredit the reviewer, especially since you are demanding that all of the reviews be reverted back to the promotional "all positive" remarks. The way I listed the review was fair and neutral. Nothing more needs to be added to it.

Secondly, the information that I removed was largely unsourced and part of it was promotional in tone, so it couldn't be kept. If you have reliable sources that list the things that were removed, then go ahead and post it on the article's talk page. The thing of the matter is that much of this is already listed on the BTK page and it's pretty unnecessary to list everything on the article entry. Also, I didn't remove all of the technical information or all of the information about the uncensored version- I had that listed on the page and someone else removed it as unsourced trivia. We can't quote an email sent to someone unless that email was discussed in a reliable place. It's all hearsay. As far as dates go, IMDb is not always the most reliable of sources for dates. If an earlier version of the film existed and was being distributed in some format, that's going to be mentioned. I removed the 2007 remark but be aware that the reason it got an award in 2008 was probably because it had been released in 2007. As far as the other awards went, I found nothing to back up that it'd been nominated for these awards. I put down what I could source. For most of the film festivals I couldn't find anything from the festivals themselves to show that they'd been screened under any name, let alone made a selection. The only places that listed the awards was the Wikipedia entry and the director's page, which is why I didn't use them. I need to have something other than the director's claim that he won these awards. If you have any sources for this other than the movie poster or anything released by the director or his company, such as reliable news articles or links to the film festival pages that show that this film was screened, then we can use that. If you find these sources, feel free to post them on the article's talk page or on my talk page.

What you're arguing to have re-added is largely what made someone want to nominate it for deletion in the first place. It was non-neutral, unsourced, and appeared to be a lot of trivia. The page works well as it is. If you truly have any problems, bring it up on the AfD page or talk to the other person who removed it as trivia. If you feel like you need to escalate this, you can always bring it up with Schmidt or to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Reply to comment on 3/22/12

This link has 2007 marked as the date of release.[1] This link [2] is for a 2008 award, which are 99.9% of the time given out the year following the film's release. (So they can take all of the films released that year into consideration.) As far as who distributed it, I maybe the site would remember? Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)