Talk:Remodernist film

How Notable Is This?[edit]

It is not correct that *anything* with an external reference is automatically 'notable' for the purposes of wikipedia. If that were true, Nothing would be excluded! This is a very serious candidate for deletion, both for lack of notability and probable advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.206.98 (talk) 17:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, we have a bit of a 'manifesto' and a list of films and directors that the 're-modernists' approve of, but there seems to be scant evidence of a real movement here - seems little more than a self-promotional tool for 'Jesse Richards' (whoever he may be). The article itself suggests that 'they' haven't even been active for a few years. Candidate for deletion methinks.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.82.203 (talk) 08:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Very suspect. I've been following this 'movement' since it first appeared on Wikipedia in 2005 and it seems to pop up in every article relating to cinema on this website. I work in film promotion, programming and distribution and, outside of Wikipedia, haven't heard so much as a whisper of these people. I'm also suspicious this ArturoBandini character is not the impartial Wikipedian he is attempting to portray. I second the movement for deletion. --96.224.5.62 (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of it is not an argument for deletion. We follow sources. These exist and IMO are sufficient to retain the article, although there needs to be some tighter referencing. If it occurs in other articles where it is not appropriate (i.e. justified by references and per WP:UNDUE) then that should be addressed in the articles or on their talk pages. If there are problems with ArturoBandini, then specific examples + diffs need to be cited. Generalised accusations are otherwise not permitted. Ty 03:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input, but I was well aware of that fact. "I don't know it" is an explanation for my suspicion. My argument for deletion would have more to do with the article's ratio of word count (around 1700 words) to sources (4 total sources, of which 2 links are from Jesse Richard's own blog [and are now broken]. Of the other two, one is a foreign language publication that could be about anything, really, leaving one credible source once again written by Jesse Richards. Might I add that the word count of the one credible source is nearly the same as that of this article).--96.232.16.177 (talk) 23:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking again, I see that another source has recently been tacked on, this one containing a reference from a filmmaker who states the following: "The remodernist movement: I'm not even sure what that means, actually. It's just a bunch of kids who said, "Hey, you're a remodernist. You want to be a part of our crowd?" And I said, "Sure, why not?" [He laughs.] I'm not completely sure." I once again move for deletion of this article as it smacks of self-promotion. --96.232.16.177 (talk) 23:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Self-promotion" is not a valid delete argument either. We follow sources—which refer to Remodernist film or interview Richards about it. There is no justification for deleting verifiable material, as, even supposing Remodernist film does not merit its own article, the information is still relevant in other articles, e.g. Jesse Richards and/or Remodernism. You might also like to read WP:BLP/WP:OUTING. Ty 00:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Remodernist film" is one of the "remodernist" off-shoots of the Stuckism art movement. As far as I'm concerned it is just as notable as Stuckism, Defastenism, or any of the other "remodernist" groups listed on Wikipedia. "Jesse Richards" was a notable member of the Stuckism group. All of this can be verified with a few minutes of reference checking. You might try that next time, and also if you decide to join Wikipedia as a contributor, I would suggest reading the tutorials and help pages before contributing. However, this article could use some more information and maybe some images.Arturobandini (talk) 01:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is still nothing at all notable about Remodernism, Jesse, or indeed Stuckism. According to Wikipedia rules, a small number of references does not automatically confer notability. Especially, one would suppose, if most of the 'notable links' are a circular chain through a small number of the same wikipedia articles. Furthermore, contrary to what has been said below, SELF PROMOTION *is* an 'issue' by Wikipedia guidelines. This page should not exist. (Personal attack removed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.230.243 (talk • contribs)

There are enough sources independent of the subject (Rogert Ebert, Film Ireland, City Magazine) to establish notability. If you feel it is not notable, you can take it to WP:AFD, but I'm guessing it would be kept. Stuckism especially is well-established by now. There's plenty of stuff on Wikipedia that I don't care for but that doesn't mean it's not notable. You clearly have a problem with the one filmmaker, Jesse Richards, but that's not a reason to delete this article. freshacconci talk to me 19:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

False. Roger Ebert is NOT a source of relevance, he just made a single f*cking 140-character TWEET on this, (Personal attack removed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.34.106.180 (talk) 12:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

Some images for this article would be nice. Perhaps somebody might add some? I don't really understand how to, but I see on the Myspace profile for Remodernist Film and Photography that they give permisson to use images on Wikipedia. Arturobandini (talk) 19:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an adequate licence. It needs to be copyleft, such as {{GFDL}} or cc-by-sa, or both, or public domain. To upload images click on the "upload file" in the bottom box on the left of any page. Then it's a steep learning curve! Images without a requisite licence get deleted. Ty 01:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latin America[edit]

There are no references to "remodernist film" in the link that someone is using to add to this article about a film from Latin America. Please stop editing the article until you can provide a verifiable source. Thanks! If this continues I will have to reach out to admin about having you blocked. Edit wars are NOT allowed on Wikipedia. Arturobandini (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Remodernist film. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]