English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick:Articles for deletion/Kriss Perras Running Waters

Add links
From English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick
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 Delete with slightly early WP:SNOWBALL closure. Articles moved to userspace per request. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Kriss Perras Running Waters

Kriss Perras Running Waters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Running Waters Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
First Canyon Rain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable film industry worker. All movies appear to be self-released and occurring some time in the future. Fails WP:N, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:CORP, and WP:MOVIE. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete all for a multitude of reasons. IMDB is not a valid source on it's own, as entries are user-submitted. Too many "credits" are unreleased films too far into the future to escape crystalballism. "Continuity Supervisor" is an inherently non-notable position. There are no independent sources whatsoever. DarkAudit (talk) 04:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete all Darkaudit said most of it for me but I can add by saying that hits on google suggest no notabilty whatsoever §hawnpoo 04:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep I do not agree at all with the comments made above - the films have notable film industry names associated with the productions and seem to be going through the same process as all films, a very slow gaining of industry support. The film "Fard Ayn" has Chase Brandon associated with it in the IMDb, and he wrote the film "The Recruit" and has worked with Ridley Scott, among other notable Hollywood types. Maybe you should call him and ask if he is involved - his number is easy to come by here it is at the CIA. He is the film liaison at the CIA - I did call him before about something else I am in the film industry, just not part of these projects)... Fard Ayn also has Henry Mortensen credited with the film. Same with the film Tiananmen Square. The film First Canyon Rain is a short and is likely to be produced by the director's company, as almost all shorts are made that way. It seems the person who wrote the comment above is not at all knowledgeable about how the film industry works and made a challenge that is not even at all credible. It is not easy to get credits into IMDb - there is a verification process a project must go through to get into IMDb. So if the films made into the IMDb, they're credible projects. Plus I've seen the projects Fard Ayn and Tiananmen Square listed in the Hollywood Reporter too. It is also hard to get a film listed in the Hollywood Reporter's production listings. There is a similar verification process a film must go through to get into that magazine. I'm the person who listed the projects into Wikipedia and am not affiliated with the films, and I updated the director's film page beuase I noticed it was not acurate with the IMDb and had some rude comments on the page that also did not seem accurate. I researched the projects prior to putting anything into Wikipedia. I thought it was cool Henry Mortensen was making his first debut in a leading role of a short and noticed the production company had many other films listed in the IMDb. Maybe you should research like I did before you make such uninformed comments and challenges about film projects. This industry is hard enough without people who do not know anything say things that are inaccurate. I also wonder if the comments made above are the same folks who posted the rude comments on the director's Wikipedia page that I deleted when I rewrote the page. If so the users above should be banned from Wikipedia. WLaccount (talk) 07:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)t —Preceding unsigned comment added by WLaccount (talk • contribs) 06:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - IMDB is not a reliable source per WP:RELIABLE. This article is under reveiw by all of wikipedia, so if it's the community's wishes for it to stay, it will, if not so be it. §hawnpoo 07:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Administrative comment. This discussion should focus on the merits, or lack thereof, of the article. It is not the venue for discussing editors' conduct. —C.Fred (talk) 07:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Holywood Reporter is another source used for these inclusions. I'm very serious - there was vandalism on the director's page I deleted that sounds very much like the comments made by this Gogo Dodo tonight and the person nominating many pages for deletion that involve Henry Mortensen. WLaccount (talk) 07:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment: Please split the nominations, as they are all different cases. You can't throw a movie, a company and a person into one bucket. Otherwise one could come, merge them into one article and say each of them is one third of notable... --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 07:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I also do not think a film company or director would create an entire web page and press kit for a project if it was not a credible film - First Canyon Rain has an entire press kit for the project including film posters. It seems the director and Henry Mortensen would have told you by now to delete the film if he wasn't really part of this short and if the film wasn't a credible project. http://www.runningwatersproductions.com/film/firstcanyonrain.html http://www.runningwatersproductions.com/press/first-canyon-rain-press-kit.html WLaccount (talk) 07:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment: One should read Talk:Kriss Perras Running Waters. But please leave Henry Mortensen (actor) out of this whole mess. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 08:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Running Waters Productions since listing nine films in development or pre-development, without a single film finished, is just ridiculous. Dream Focus 10:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Note "The film "Fard Ayn" has Chase Brandon associated with it in the IMDb, and he wrote the film "The Recruit" and has worked with Ridley Scott, among other notable Hollywood types. " This line of reasoning doesn't quite work. Notability doesn't inherit to a film just because one of the makers once worked with a notable figure in some capacity. The guideline calls for notable people to be directly associated with the specific production either in front or behind the camera. = Mgm|(talk) 10:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: The "Fard Ayn" film also has Lloyd Ahern II as the DP who was a cinematographer on "Up close and Personal" andon the films "Kicking and Screaming" and "Dodgeball" and "We Were Soldiers" and he is an award winning cinematographer. And so does the "Tiananmen Square" film. Are you any of you guys in the film biz? Having films in pre-production and development are big feats in and of themselves. There is no recognition here for how hard it is just to get a film that far. It is a miracle when any film gets made or progresses along at all. It is a hard business. I did do research on these citations for about two hours, but it seems not worth it to post things in Wikipedia because all that time is lost so easy with no real reason behind it - your actions seem arbitrary

  • Comment There are standards that any article must satify for inclusion. The first is that there must be reliable, verifiable, third-party sources that are independent of the subject. Let's run down the list, shall we? IMDB. Unreliable, as it's entries are user-submitted. It can be used to check the veracity of other sources, but not as a primary source on it's own. Lime Salted Water refers crew info to IMDB. Cinema Hill lists her name as Script Supervisor, but goes no further. Same for A through M. No trouble there, but nothing considered "notable". Then there's Running Waters Productions. Nothing there is usable. It's her own site. Not third-party, not independent. Absolutely invalid as a source. You seem to be taking this awfully personally for someone claiming to just be someone in the film industry, and accusing other editors of a specific vendetta against this person. Tell me, just WHY would I pick out *this particular woman and this particular article* for attack? DarkAudit (talk) 15:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: That is not what I said. I said I did not think it was right to pick out the article I posted with two hours of research using citations and request it for deletion - then leave in the article I requested for deletion that cites no sources whatsoever and claims the person wrote something that is obviously written by the site's owners - in addition the article I requested for deletion was not neutral and rules also say the postings are suppose to be neutral. That is what I'm saying, not whatever it is you think I'm saying. That is is not right. And there seems to be a lot of emphasis and credibility here going into a posting that did not leave a signature nor did they cite any sources - it is all opinion - and yet you seem to think it is credible. That does not say a whole lot about the process that is going on here to determine things. That is the other thing I am saying. Plus to say that IMDb is not a credible source is not right either. IMDb is the main source for films. The postings here cite IMDb can be posted by the user, which might be true, but the film has to meet certain criteria elsewhere that are not posted by the user to be included in IMDb. So being in film gives me a little more insight than what I see going on here is also what I'm saying. This will be my last post as this site has severely disappointed me. I used to consider Wikipedia very good place to read stuff because so many people posted on it, but not any more now that I see what happens on this site.

  • Reply You're still not getting it about IMDb. It's data is user-submitted. Just as you cannot use another Wikipedia article as a source, you cannot use IMDb for the same reason. A person can go in and insert dozens of credits for themselves, and unless checked, those false entries could be there for months or years. You can use IMDb as a secondary reference to back up another, reliable and VERIFIABLE primary source, but not as a primary source itself. I really suggest you stop screaming at us, calm down, and read the guidelines. DarkAudit (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment He already been reported at the ANI noticeboard here. Also lets keep this on the articles nominated not the editors §hawnpoo 16:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and DarkAudit. Several policies failed. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete at least the film. Films not yet in production are almost never notable--with the obvious exception of some very major projects where there can be extensive news reporting at an early stage. A company with all its films not yet produced is also not notable in the absence of really strong evidence. Thesearticles were not an appropriate use of the rescue tag. DGG (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete all No proper reliable sources and too much crystal ball.--Sloane (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete for non-notability and crystal ballery. Drmies (talk) 04:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete all per DarkAudit and others, for multiple reasons. ₳dam Zel 13:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete all. There is no coverage about Kriss Perras Running Waters in reliable sources. The production company has not actually produced a released film yet. And the short film also lacks coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - The thing that makes this director notable is she is a woman and one of only a few women in film that direct and write. I forgot what the exact statistic is and would have to look more to show you the study I saw last year, but it was something like 5% for women in directing and even less for women in writing in film. The only other thing is, delete the film credits that are from her production company only. Otherwise keep it all. A20anna (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
— A20anna (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep - I found this article off the feminism page - this page should be kept because of the statistical reasons above. Film is an industry that has historically discriminated against women. I agree the only thing that should be deleted are the films that are only on her site. This debate about IMDb is silly - Wiki has so many pages that only quote by an actor's IMDb credits that it is not even funny. So why pick just this one out. My vote is to keep all else. Go Women! Find the feminism page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gender_Studies/Feminism_Task_Force Lady1958 (talk) 18:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
— Lady1958 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep - I also found this article on the Feminism page and vote to keep for all the feminism reasons listed here. I also agree to delete the ones that are cited just from her Website alone. I also say One for the Women! Aalda3335 (talk) 18:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
— Aalda3335 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Note on the votes above. The 3 Keep votes above appear to be sockpuppet accounts. They have no article edits whatsoever. Kaldari (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - note to the note - we are feminists on a gmail group and were alerted to this article and what was hapening and absolutely disagree to its deletion for feminism reasons above. We are voting to keep it and are passing this page around the Web to vote to keep it. We read Wiki but have previously not felt a need to edit pages until now. Labina (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
— Labina (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Comment as is the above. And their intention to abuse the process has been made public. Recommend sanctions. DarkAudit (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - how is it abusive to send an article around the web to do jsut what you said vote on it? We are Wiki users too - In any way I do know where those statistics can be found: For the third year in a row, women comprised 17% of all executive producers, producers, directors, writers, cinematographers, and editors. → Gains made by women in certain behind-the-scenes roles were met by losses in others. For example, while the percentage of women executive producers increased slightly (15% in 1999, 16% in 2000), the representation of women producers declined (27% in 1999, 24% in 2000). While the percentage of women writers increased by two percentage points (12% in 1999, 14% in 2000), the representation of female cinematographers fell by two percentage points (4% in 1999, 2% in 2000). Only women directors experienced a notable gain from 5% in 1999 to 11% in 2000 (9% in 1998). → Films with female executive producers and directors employed significantly greater percentages of women than films with male executive producers and directors. Here is the source: moviesbywomen.com/statistics.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radioglyph1942 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
— Radioglyph1942 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Comment Throwing statistics at us about people who are not the subject will not change the fact that the article and it's sources fail to meet established guidelines. Newly created accounts that only show up to add noise to an AfD discussion are not only highly suspicious, but are generally discounted by admins for the process abusers that they are. DarkAudit (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - We're just a group of older women who meet at a library once a week. We've been around long enough to see this kind of thing become abusive on its own end and decided to take a stand. the only things I think that should be deleted are the films that are from her own Website. I know there is one in our group who disagrees with me but that is my input. And your own message told us the following that we can be part of the discussion: "If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding 72.84.6.181 (talk) 19:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC) at the end.
    • note - sorry that was my post above - I did read the directions ladies but forgot to create an account Raindropt749 (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
      • note: also I just read that comment on the stats - you missed the point. Those stats DO apply to her as she is a women director and writer in film and that is what those stats are about. So you absolutely missed the point we are trying to make in the discussion here.Raindropt749 (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
— Raindropt749 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Comment The points are these. You and yours have publicly stated their intentions to perform a Cyber Sisters attack to disrupt these proceedings by repeatedly yelling "the guidelines don't have to apply to her, because she's a WOMAN!" You and yours have created accounts for the sole purpose of disrupting these proceedings in said manner. You have not contributed before in all the years Wikipedia has been online. Why should we expect you to contribute in a positive manner once this matter is closed one way or another? I suggest you all go and actually read the relevant guidelines the other editors have invoked in making an informed decision, and then make less noise here, and set to fixing your pet article. DarkAudit (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per nomination of lack of notability and crystal balling. Being a woman has no weight here, unless she is the first female director or someone whose story of becoming a director is important. Simply being female and being a director, regardless of statistics, are not related. We don't have articles on every female soldier in the US Military, even though statistically they're a minority. This person has no notability. Being a female doesn't give instant notablity. The359 (talk) 20:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Sorry, but the issue of feminism is not relevant here. Notability is. Too much future - not enough reliable undisputable reference. Is a continuity supervisor notable? Essential, maybe, but then again so is the canteen supervisor. Vital but not stars. That's life. Library of Congress? If her poetry has been published in the USA it must by law be in the Library of Congress. Like the British Library, it is a Library of Deposit where one copy of every book should be sent (every book from that country, that is!). Look for the Cataloging in Progress record on the publication page - this is a time saver for the librarians. "First Canyon Rain"? I can find nothing independent on this title. I am ignoring YouTube and Feedage (entry dated today!). "Dunk Tank Priest"? Seems to be a YouTube shortie. I could be wrong. PROVE me wrong. (I never mind being proved wrong.) I would suggest to Ms Perras (or Waters - whichever) that she comes back when something solid is there to put here. A film in the can and distributed - not YouTubed - and getting audiences. Not necessarily large ones - a cult film doesn't have big audiences. But there must be reliable outside references - by reliable outside people. Peridon (talk) 21:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I would comment that while IMDb has its verification process, we at Wikipedia also have a verification process and a suitability process. This is part of it. Putting the article in front of the Wikipedia community for anyone to comment. Perhaps more weight may be given to regular participators than to one shot 'editors'. Perhaps not - depends on what they say. This is not a vote - no-one counts the Keeps and Deletes like in an election. A consensus should be reached. If not, it'll start again. If any of the Keep brigade have any reliable evidence, please put it before us. We can't find it - well, I can't anyway. We may have missed something. Peridon (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep According to Wiki rules, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I think it is safe to say that everybody on this discussion board has heard of feminism and understands that there is a discrimination against women in Hollywood. Wiki guidelines also state that fame is not to be the determining factor in the article inclusion, which seems to be the thing that is being discussed here is that is this person "famous" - probably not, but she is notable according to the guidelines: "Within Wikipedia, notability refers to whether or not a topic merits its own article. Article topics need to be notable, or "worthy of notice." It is important to note that topic notability on Wikipedia is not necessarily dependent on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic — although those may contribute." So the issue of feminism is relevant to the deletion and this article fits the guidelines of your notability requirements.A20anna (talk) 01:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC) — A20anna (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Adminstrator note A20anna: I have struck through your 'Keep' because you have already written 'Keep' further up the page and a second one may mislead the closing administrator. Your comment may stay, of course. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • That makes absolutely no sense. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
        • NOTE ON DELETION: According to wiki rules "Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors. " that talk page is not neutral and does use any sources and should be deleted. And the topic of fame is not to be the issue at hand here, according to Wiki rules. Sorry if I did not make the point clear. I am just saying this discussion seems to be about whether or that person is famous, and Wiki states that is not to be the determining factor here. However, the idea this person is a woman in film and is one of the few women in film does make her reference here fit within the Wiki guidelines for notability. Did that make what I am saying more clear?A20anna (talk) 01:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
        • Comment on more weight to regulars: I don't think that is a fair process at all. People who contribute here are not necessarily experts on a subject more than people who are just starting out contributing. In fact if resumes were given it could yo find the new people have far more experience in matters here than the regular editors - maybe anyway - so try to stay open to everybody contributing to the discussion because it is silly to exclude people in an open database like this. Wiki is suppose to be an open discussion place. Also can you tell me how to contribute to this discussion without having to use th edit page feature or is that the right way to do it? A20anna (talk) 01:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict, reply to your first comment) Not really, you seem to be jumbling up several policies. I don't see at all how NPOV applies to the article, and I think you need to (re)read the relevant guidelines on notability (as opposed to fame), WP:N and WP:BIO, and the one for reliable sources, WP:RS, as sources determine eligibility for inclusion. Also, are you asserting that there is a conspiracy against women in film on Wikipedia? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I see your point regarding new editors being at a disadvantage, but unfortunately discussions such as these are grounded in long-standing policies and guidelines which define the project. I am trying to engage you in discussion right now, but realistically this article is going to be deleted regardless of what we talk about unless you or someone else produces reliable secondary sources independent of the subject to establish her notability. Also, the "Edit" tab is the correct way to contribute. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment of course not. That's silly. I'm just saying that from what I see being discussed here is whether or not this person is fmaous. And the guidelines state that is not to be the determining factor. I do see and understand you IMDb rule. I'm just saying be open to new people in the database who are on the independent side of film, and especially to the women and especially because this is an open database written by the contributors. Plus to just use some of the ways you are talking about means you would only include corporatized films, which is boring. We all already know who those people are and it is fun to learn about new people who are not yet in the summer blockbusters. And thanks on the edit tab thing. And likely it will be but at least wiki editors should know people are watching and care about new lesser known people being included in this databaseA20anna (talk) 02:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply - What is being discussed is notability as defined in the guidelines WP:NOTABILITY, and WP:BIO. If you can point out which of the criteria are met, then we can have useful discussion. Reliable sources writing about her, her production company, and the movie would advance the discussion greatly. So you can put fame aside. Nobody here is discussing fame. -- Whpq (talk) 02:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • No one has discussed being famous. What has been stated is that this person has not done anything notable, and there is almost no information from reliable, outside sources which discuss this person, the film, or the company.
Being a woman or being independent does not get this article, or those who contribute to this article, special treatment. These articles are being nominated for deletion on their violation of policy, not because of some feminist mumbo jumbo. Your concern over the plight of women in the film industry has no weight in this debate. Wikipedia is not meant to promote an ideal, therefore attempting to include a woman simply because she is a woman would violate Wikipedia policy of neutrality.
There are many independent films and independent producers who have articles on Wikipedia. But they are included because they are notable within their field and outside sources have discussed them and their work. Being independent doesn't mean you automatically pass the criteria of inclusion.
We're not here for "fun", and we're not here to impress those on the outside who might be watching. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not a promotional tool. The359 (talk) 02:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
    • NOTE - OK no problem on the fame thing - it was just my thoughts on how I see what is being said here - also that is not what I meant about the outside. This Wiki thing is suppose to be an open thing, where people are talking about all people, and I did not see this as a positive nor open discussion so that is why I joined in to point out to try and stay open minded was all. Also this is my other thought - maybe the film articles ought to be treated like the feminism gender studies guidelines list that says the following: "Feel free to sign up under contributors. If you come across an article which either needs attention, or alternatively that doesn't exist (even though it should), add it to the lists under "Requested articles", "Requests for expansion", or "Requests for review/attention" headings. If articles under those headings seem mature enough to no longer need attention, feel free to clean them off the list. If there are categories or templates you come across on Wikipedia which may be of interest to contributors of this project, feel free to add them under "Useful Categories" or "Useful Templates". You can also 'adopt' an article, or use the Discussion page to discuss issues relating to Gender Studies on Wikipedia. Finally, beyond Wikipedia, some contributors of this project are working on a Wikibook (textbook) on Feminism at Wikibooks" In other words a mina admin person receives requests for articles and approves or disapproves before they are admitted into Wiki. That would save this whole discussion, at least I think anyway. There is a lot of sort of meanness in the replies here, which is not so nice. That is why I keep saying stay open to new ideas and let the encyclopedia grow. This thing is a cool idea if it stays open minded. A20anna (talk) 02:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
If you want to discuss policy, this is not the place. WikiProject Gender Studies is the place to discuss the policies of Gender Studies on Wikipedia. People are already able to suggest articles and people create them if they feel it'll meet Wikipedia's criteria. There's no need for an administrator to judge it.
I suggest becoming more versed in Wikipedia policy by editing various articles and learning the ins and outs of Wikipedia before suggesting changes to said policies. The359 (talk) 02:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Reply To All - I don't think a page should stay anyway if we do not represent the whole person in our depiction of them, that is what I really think. I mean if we have to by Wiki rules delete half or more of what that person is about because of certain Wiki rules, it is better for that person for the page to be deleted anyway. I mean, people work hard for their credentials no matter what their job is, because Wiki rules cannot give them their fair day, it is better to just delete the page. Those are my real feelings on deleting the page. But I wanted to stand up for the person because she was a woman, so I took a stand. A20anna (talk) 02:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think you're quire understanding what others are suggesting. If the person is notable, then of course we will cover them fully. No one is suggesting deleting only certain bits of the article. The subject of the article, this woman, is what is not passing our standards of notability. If the subject is not notable, then there's no article period. The359 (talk) 03:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

A20anna has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. 

I put this here because I think this page has a lot of negative energy and needs a smile on it. I hope everybody can smile now.
  • I appreciate that sentiment, A20anna; in the midst of heated discussion it's important to remember that we're all in this together. Baileypalblue (talk) 05:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • That said, Delete all. First Canyon Rain is an unreleased film with no reliable source coverage and no indication that filming has begun, thus fails WP:NFF. Running Waters Productions has no RS coverage and no completed films. Kriss Perras Running Waters lacks the reliable source coverage necessary to establish a presumption of notability; work as continuity/script supervisor does not establish encyclopedic notability, nor (generally) does work on unreleased films, and there's no evidence that the subject's work as artist and poet satisfy WP:CREATIVE. Baileypalblue (talk) 05:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Thanks for the smile. To summarise a lot of the above as I see it: Feminism cannot be an issue as this is not an article about feminism, or about a feminist leader - unless there is another side tp her we haven't been told about; There is very little RELIABLE OUTSIDE referencing; Unmade or unreleased films are notable when Spielberg or similar is involved - not otherwise; No notability is indicated on the poetry, painting, acting or photography. Providing acceptable references might change our minds - but they need to be independent and reliable. The Sun and The National Enquirer are dubious, self-published is a no-no. All in all, I've got nothing against the subject of the article. Like with many others that have come to AfD, I do wish her well and enjoying success. When she gets there, her article will take its place. It's unfortunate for people starting up that Wikipedia cannot record them and help them up (or onto) the ladder. They have to be at least two or three rungs up (and referenced) for us to consider them of note. That's the way Wikipedia is set up. If people don't like it, they can always start their own encyclopaedia, or directory, or whatever. Peridon (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Your comment made me laugh Peridon! (e.g. if they don't like it they can start their own encyclopedia :0) Thanks!Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 01:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep ALL and discuss possibility of certain merges on the various talk pages. Continued research through the course of this AfD has shown notability. Good job. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - Uh, where exactly? I don't see any reliable outside references added to any of the three articles which help establish notability, nor anything mentioned in this AFD. The359 (talk) 01:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Huh? What continued research are you referring to? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Wait, what? Are you in the wrong discussion or something? There's been a lot of noise here, but not one thing done to improve anything. That or you're trolling. DarkAudit (talk) 01:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment or it could be this person just has a different opinion and expressed it - like I said stay open to other ideas, whether or not they supported their side of the discussion is another issue entirely. It seems like they are saying the fact that so many people have commented here might mean something to them for notable but even I am not sure what they mean. :0) Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 02:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

::Comment - according to the rescue squad - "Every time an article is deleted, the contributions that were made to it are lost. Wikipedia administrators can access the information in deleted articles, but they are not necessarily experts on the article's topic. Once an article is deleted, its content, value and appropriateness can no longer be evaluated by the general public. In addition, the contributor who writes a poor article on a notable topic is likely to be inexperienced. If their first efforts are deleted, they may be discouraged and refrain from creating further articles, or even editing. Everyone starts somewhere and we should encourage better writing and better articles. Good faith efforts to contribute should be met with encouragement to improve." I think this article is a good example of that statement. The person who rewrote it from what I see here not only left the discussion but was sort of hurt by the effort to delete their work. Maybe we're trying really hard here to delete in our discussion rather than rescue. I see loads of, "ah hec get rid of it" and not a lot of hey this rule may apply to keep it. I am saying this for this reason here "Good faith efforts to contribute should be met with encouragement to improve." I tried to find a resource on another page and did find the verbatim article that was cited. Maybe we have not really looked enough for stuff to support this article? This is just a thought on our efforts to rescue rather than delete. Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 04:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

We don't keep articles because an editor takes it as an insult. It has nothing to do with the way the article it is written, it's because the person isn't notable. There is nothing to rescue if the subject does not pass Wikipedia's standards for inclusion! The majority of users here who are voting for delete are doing so because they understand Wikipedia's policy and they feel it fails to meet the criteria, no matter how well it's written. If you have something which makes this person notable, with referencing, now is the time to provide it. Nominating it for rescue and trying to turn it into an emotional ordeal is not going to stop deletion. The359 (talk) 08:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm posting the following to encourage all the new folks on this page to look around and find sources to support what you are saying that also fit with the Wiki rules. Maybe it might help. Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 04:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete all. The person has not met any of the criteria of WP:CREATIVE or WP:ENTERTAINER. The film has not met any of the criteria of WP:NF. The company has not met any of the criteria of WP:CORP. While there may be relatively few women represented in the film industry, there are still numerous ones who have made significant contributions to notable projects (Penny Marshall, Jodie Foster, Mira Nair, Sofia Coppola). If there were no such individuals, and there were equally no other women who (like the subject of this AfD) had as of yet not made any significant contributions to notable projects, then some sort of uniqueness argument (as suggested above) might be applicable. However, those are not the facts about the world. Bongomatic 05:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete First Canyon Rain Unfinished film without significant independent coverage. Duffbeerforme (talk) 05:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
No one would know the political affiliation of this person, and accusing editors of malice in their nominations for deletion requires evidence other than "this person edits articles on the opposite political spectrum of this person". There is nothing bad faith here, the page was a vanity page at the time of it's edit.
Also note that User:Gogo Dodo nominated the article for deletion. The actions of an unregistered user to mark the article has a vanity page has zero bearing on this deletion discussion. We don't keep an article because someone might have done something wrong with it in the past. The359 (talk) 08:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Note to closing admin: This is in response to a comment by A20anna added here and subsequently removed. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Kriss Perras Running Waters No coverage by independent reliable sources. No evidence she has has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. Satisfies no part of WP:CREATIVE. Duffbeerforme (talk) 06:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Running Waters Productions No coverage by independent reliable sources. The IMDB link does not support most of the claims it is used to reference. Duffbeerforme (talk)
  • Delete Delete per the points mentioned out above. Can go into detail, but it obviously violates Notability and the Crystal Ball tests. Just because she is female, no offense, doesn't make her special and above the rules that the rest of the wiki goes by. Q T C 08:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment So it's gone from misogyny to a political vendetta? Please. Stop. Go and actually read The guidelines on notability and sources. Then read the guidelines on arguments to avoid. We are *not* talking about Penny Marshall or Jodie Foster here. We are talking about someone with no qualifying credits to their name, no notable achievements, and no significant coverage. What we have is a highly suspicious group of newcomers screaming persecution of what is most likely a personal friend. DarkAudit (talk) 12:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Note to closing admin: This is in response to a comment by A20anna added here and subsequently removed. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Merge - while I cannot yet cite the wiki source, I have moticed through looking at other pages tagged for rescue that maybe this one is something that should be merged on the various talk pages like it was suggested on my talk page too. I am not yet good neough at the wiki rules to tell you how I think it should stay but am trying so please no more mean notes to me. Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry - I posted it on my talk page because the note on my talk page said it should not be on this page but on the talk page - trying to follow what everybody is suggesting is getting disouraging. You can find all that I said on the my talk page - it is not deleted. Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • comment - There is nothing to merge to. -- Whpq (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
MichaelQSchmidt said to merge to talk pages and that was what I was commenting on - sorry if I was not clear. Also after reviewing the history of this page, it has been here since 2007, do you all think this is a page to consider for semi-protection from to prevent edits from anonymous users (IP addresses), as well as edits from accounts that are not autoconfirmed. It has been vandalized quite a few times but I do not know what the number is for a page to put into this status - that is even if this page is kept. Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
There is no reason to semi-protect an article that is not currently being vandalized, or one that is going to be deleted. The359 (talk) 19:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
MichaelQSchmidt clearly did not read any of the discussion in this AFD before throwing out his comment. There is nothing to merge to. -- Whpq (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I was reading on the WikiProject Gender Studies/Feminism Task Force‎ page and hexaChord suggested userfying this page - which if I get it right, I agree with this. Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
After learning for sure what it means, I am going to userfy the Kriss Perras Running Waters page and help it grow as part of my Rescue Squad efforts. At present I am learning how to create the page so please give me a little time do to it. I am not at all capable with templates and stuff here. Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 21:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Page is moved to User:A20anna/Kriss Perras Running Waters, and the original is tagged for completing the userfication. DarkAudit (talk) 22:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I only moved one of them, and now I'm being told by #wikipedia to put it back until the AfD is over. A little *too* bold, I suppose. DarkAudit (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I've reversed the page move per DarkAudit's request at AN.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Note to closing Admmin: The author has requested that I "sponsor" her and has a continued interest in bringing these articles into line with standards. Now certainly in considering the arguments for keep and delete, and not seeing it simply as weight-of-numbers saying the same thing, there is a real possibility that these might be "kept" and tagged for improvement, as such is exactly what is hoped for... they not being unsalvagable. However, in the event that a closer feels the keep opinions are not convincing arguments toward keep or no-consensus, I ask that they be userfied to the author without prejudice so they can continue to be improved without worry of the ticking clock, and be welcomed back when AfD concerns have been met. Thank you, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
    What persuasive keep argument is there here? I see a meatpuppet parade rambling about a conspiracy against feminism and your !vote, which isn't grounded in truth. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 00:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
    Oh? Did not see a link to the ongoing investigation. Sorry. Must have missed it. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if you need to make such unsupported claims to get an article userified. There have been precisely zero credible rationales (that is to say, rationales consistent with policy or guideline) suggested for the notability of any of the articles nominated here. Bongomatic 00:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I need no "claims" one way or another to request a potentially decent article be userfied so that any AfD concerns can be met. And am quitre surprised at the vilification going on here. This is not the old west were not agreeing with someone means "I'm agin 'em". Nor is it the Reich where all must march in lockstep. I have an opinion and concerns. I voiced them. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Exactly my point—no claims are required, so why make far-fetched ones? Bongomatic 01:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Took you long enough to Godwin the discussion. None of your claims are based in reality. You're a troll, Mike. DarkAudit (talk) 01:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Note to everybody - Let's keep this discussion focused on the merit of the article, and not the editors participating in the AFD. Civility please. -- Whpq (talk) 01:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Snow delete and userfy. Newby willing to work on article(s) in userspace as sources become available, perfectly reasonable. -- Banjeboi 14:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Reply - what does Snow Delete mean? I still want to userfy. Plus it gives me a chance to understand the rules better as I plan on asking some of the people I've met if a citation etc. meets the rules - that way it is solid prior to coming back out to the main space. I think it needs it now that I understand and actually saw the IMDb rule [Wikipedia:Citing IMDb]]. Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 15:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
See WP:SNOWBALL -- the suggestion is that the result of the AfD is inevitable, so it should be closed early. User:Benjiboi is endorsing userfication, which would result in the deletion of the mainspace article, and I agree with the reasoning. Baileypalblue (talk) 15:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


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://enwiki.freddythechick.net/index.php?title=English_Wikipedia_@_Freddythechick:Articles_for_deletion/Kriss_Perras_Running_Waters&oldid=125807"