Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zen filmmaking

: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 as per WP:NEO standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

=[[Zen filmmaking]]=

:{{la|Zen filmmaking}} ([{{fullurl:Zen filmmaking|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zen filmmaking}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

"Zen filmmaking" is a neologism which describes the personal filmmaking philosophy of Scott Shaw. It is not widely used in this context by other filmmakers, if it is used at all. All references are to books or articles by Shaw. Fails WP:NOTABILITY & WP:NEOLOGISM. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

* Do not delete. It always strikes me a strange that only people who are not Hollywood based and are not involved in the film industry and, thus, do not frequently read magazines like the Hollywood Reporter, Variety (magazine) and other industry magazines attack articles like this.

FYI: this style of filmmaking is highly documented, it is discussed in university course on filmmaking, (like where I learned about it at USC), and there have been and are numerous filmmakers who have employed Zen Filmmaking as a cinematic style other than its creators. Just look at the list of films created in various counties around the world that have used this technique. In addition, there has been more than one parody film made about Zen Filmmaking and it has been mimicked on the television series MADtv. Plus, your statement about the only references being written by Scott Shaw is not true. If you check the magazine articles listed you will see that they were written by other people. Articles about this style of filmmaking have even appeared in newspapers such as the Jakarta Post. This seems more like a personal attack set in motion by User:Delicious carbuncle than anything else as I notice he or she has deleted other entries made about Scott Shaw. Again, this is an important article and there is no valid justification for its deletion.(Alex West (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC))User blocked as puppetmaster of socks. Darrenhusted (talk)

**KEEP Are you kidding me? (Filmbotboy (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC))

:No, we're not. Do you have any polices or guidelines which this article meets? Darrenhusted (talk) 17:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Hello, I guess I could go into all kinds of reasons and logic of how your statement of WP:NEO is not true. It appears, however, you have your mind made up, as do I. Though I certainly understand the concept of neologisms and Wikipedia's policies towards it, I think perhaps your point of view is overlooking the fact of the amount of filmmakers and films that this style of filmmaking has influenced, which has been documented in Reliable Sources from established News Organizations. This, alone, elevates it from neologisms. What I will says it that the article on Zen Filmmaking was long ago approved by Wikipedia:WikiProject Films. Who are you or I to overlook this fact? The article is also referenced with several Reliable Sources from established News Organizations. I'm sure the number of these sources could easily be increased if someone wanted to take the time, because I know I have read a number of articles about Zen Filmmaking in magazines and newspapers which have not been referenced in this article as of yet. I understand your point of view, I trust you will understand mine. (Filmbotboy (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC))

 User blocked as sockpuppet of Alex West. Darrenhusted (talk)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:08, 3 July 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.