Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Film look

:{{la|Film look}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Film_look Stats])

:({{Find sources|Film look}})

:({{Find sources|Film look process}})

This is a redundant article to Filmlook. Both articles are about a technique that can be described in a few sentences. Suggest merging into a section in digital cinematography and/or color grading. NickCochrane (talk) 01:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• Delete No sources to show that is a commonly used term. FurrySings (talk) 06:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

::It is a commonly used term in the digital cinematography world... it just is so simple, it needs to be merged likely... NickCochrane (talk) 08:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - nominator is incorrect: this is not a duplication of Filmlook, as that is a company, and this is a process. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

::Comment Shortly after the AfD nomination, the page was edited to become a page about some company called "Filmlook". This is an AfD discussion about the technique and as it relations to the other redundant article Film look, however the other company is not notable either... I'm not quite sure what happened here. Very confusing all of a sudden. NickCochrane (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

:::The Filmlook article was always about the company Filmlook while this article, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Film_look&diff=534855381&oldid=526551937 which you recently changed the name from "Filmizing" to "Film look"] was always about the filmizing process. After changing the name of this article to "Film look" you then called "Filmlook" and "Film look" the same topic. You were confused about the Filmlook article and now it's clarified. --Oakshade (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - First of all the basis of this AfD is factually inaccurate as the term "film look" refers to the very heavily used post-production technique of augmenting a video image to appear it was sourced from film and "Filmlook" is an actual Burbank, California based company that helped pioneer the technique. Secondly the "film look" process is, as mentioned above, a very heavily used technique in film and television post-production. Far too much content to be merge into the digital cinematography or the far-too specific color grading articles. The in-depth coverage from secondary sources on the "film look" process is far and wide. Some examples here. [http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/35511/getting_film_look/][http://books.google.com/books?id=e_oulfUrQSAC&pg=PA255&dq=%22film+look%22+process+video&hl=en#v=onepage&q=%22film%20look%22%20process%20video&f=false][http://www.creativemac.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=91973][http://www.digitalartsonline.co.uk/news/creative-lifestyle/film-look-tool-for-editors-updated/][http://books.google.com/books?id=4qZ7SJ4wk-8C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false] (an entire book)[http://books.google.com/books?id=xl6jii9wbzoC&pg=PA76&dq=%22film+look%22+process+video&hl=en#v=onepage&q=%22film%20look%22%20process%20video&f=false][http://books.google.com/books?id=cvFpw71AhG4C&pg=PA216&dq=%22film+look%22+process+video&hl=en#v=onepage&q=%22film%20look%22%20process%20video&f=false] --Oakshade (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC) Addition - Added [http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp-pdf-files/WHP053.pdf this extremely in-depth journal] by BBC Research & Development on the film look process. --Oakshade (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

::Then please add these sources into the article and let other editors decided on this page's notability. Thanks! NickCochrane (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

:::As WP:AFD states very clearly in the WP:BEFORE section, "If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination." I suggest withdrawing this AfD. --Oakshade (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

::::I don't consider the sources to change the notability of the topic. This is a really simple technique. "Filmlook or film look or filmizing is the process of making video or digitally acquired images look similar to motion picture film." That's all this needs - and not it's own page. NickCochrane (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

:::::You might want to become familiar with WP:NOTABILITY and WP:GNG which stipulates in-depth coverage from secondary sources as evidence of notability. Strangely, you yourself stated above it's a "commonly used term." If a topic is "common," it's mostly likely notable. You might consider the film look technique "simple," but in fact it's very complex technology that took years and evolve and its still evolving, not to mention it is a huge business with many digital imaging companies offering film look process products.--Oakshade (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

::::::Oh give me a break. "Complex technology". I've done my fair share of color grading - it's a gimmick used to make video look like film. Although, it never does - it just looks crappy and lame like most digital footage is. It doesn't warrant an entire article with all the details. It's a commonly used term that warrants nothing but the sentence I wrote above. NickCochrane (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

:::::::So now we know why you brought these AfD's up. While your WP:IDONTLIKEIT opinion of this topic being a "gimmick" and "crappy and lame" or that the image technology was somehow easy to develop over the decades is noted, it has absolutely nothing to do with our notability guidelines even if your opinion were true. Our guidelines stipulate topic inclusion based on in-depth coverage that the topic has received, not users' opinions of those topics. If you'd like to change WP:NOTABILITY to ban topics some people might consider "crappy and lame", you need to make your case at Wikipedia talk:Notability, not push your own criteria in a AfD. --Oakshade (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

::::::::The AfD still stands and will be decided in 7 days as per the AfD process. NickCochrane (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

:::::::::As you're basing this AfD on what has nothing to do with our notability guidelines, I recommend withdrawing this AfD so the community can focus on other matters for 7 days.--Oakshade (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NickCochrane (talk) 03:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Keep as a notable topic as reflected by the sources that {{user|Oakshade}} listed. There is enough coverage for an encyclopedic article. The ideal article may or may not be long, but the topic is certainly more than just a dictionary definition. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
• Keep per meeting notability standards [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Film+look+process%22&tbm=nws&tbs=ar:1][https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Film+look+process%22]... specially after being re-worked to separate the article on this process from the FilmLook, Inc. company. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
• Delete or merge As per Nick, this technique could be integrated into another page such as Digital cinematography, etc. LenaLeonard (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

::And this technique that has has extensive in-depth coverage by secondary sources doesn't pass WP:NOTABILITY how?--Oakshade (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

::I couldn't help but notice awfully similar edit patterns to amazingly identical topics to User:NickCochrane since this account was created on January 19th. Might there be a sock puppet issue here?--Oakshade (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

:::Response It just seems bloated as a page. At the end of the day, it is notable, but may not warrant its own page as was said. And as per your claim: "Amazingly identical" as in we're both members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Film? I've seen User:NickCochrane around, as with many other members. LenaLeonard (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

::::There is no such deletion criteria as a "bloated" page. When the nom agrees it's notable, there's a problem with an AfD. As for the other thing, there's more than film project scope editing patterns. We'll leave that for the Wikipedia:CheckUser folks to decide.--Oakshade (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Note - Sockpuppet case open regarding User:NickCochrane and User:LenaLeonard at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NickCochrane.--Oakshade (talk) 05:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

::Sockpuppetry case has been put on hold by admins, because I am not using a sockpuppet. Also, the AfD is likely going to rule in your favour. NickCochrane (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

:::No, Nick. A Checkuser admin, after performing a checukuser showing strong evidence that LenaLeonard is a sock of you, has put the case on hold pending a decision, not because you "are not using a sockpuppet." --Oakshade (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I found something interesting in Nick's edit history. It is he who deliberately created the confusion between Filmlook and Film look - by moving this article from a prior name.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Film_look&diff=prev&oldid=534855381] Lukeno94 (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

::I didn't deliberately do that to create the two AfD's. A simple google search shows Film look is the more commonly used term. NickCochrane (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

::*In which case, you should've known these articles were not duplications of each other... Lukeno94 (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2013 (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.