Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brokeback Mountain cinematic analysis

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 of the debate was delete. Flowerparty☀ 00:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brokeback Mountain cinematic analysis

What citations do exist in this article are from message board posts. Delete as original research. --InShaneee 22:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It is the most influential and and controversial film of 2005. Anything that can be added is great, especially something like this which can clear up people's minds on the movie and so on. 67.120.168.41 23:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Incredibly fascinating and found no where else. Answers so many unanswered questions that were on Annie Proulx's forum (that no longer exists). Explains the symbolism and literary devices of the story and film. Very thorough, and a definite KEEP. Shamir1 23:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Re-Keep (recommendation from the author) since total censorship would be a double standard compared to Criticisms of The Da Vinci Code (DVC) et. al. It is very telling that the most honored film of 2005, some say of all time, cannot be described in detail within today's Wikipedia community: very interesting. Meanwhile, The Da Vinci Code has entire articles devoted to opinions criticizing the book, while opinions about Brokeback symbolism are considered beyond Wikipedia??? No, you clowns need to get your biases in sync and re-think your motives for censoring details about Brokeback Mountain. The cinematic article should be converted from "Delete~" to "Clean-up" status, as is typical with other Wikipedia articles: the hypocrisy against Brokeback Mountain must stop. -Wikid77 11:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that the Da Vinci Code criticism article references twelve books of criticism and analysis. I'm not familiar with a single book doing the same for Brokeback.

And, please, no personal attacks. eaolson 13:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Shame, it's a solid review, but doesn't belong here. Yanksox 22:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Very interesting and enjoyable read, but this isn't the place for it. I hope it finds a home somewhere, though. GassyGuy 22:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete OR. SM247 23:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Original research. Forum posts are not valid references. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge any NPOV material into Brokeback Mountain, then delete the rest as OR. eaolson 17:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as a roll-out from main article, due to size/editing issues about the most honored film of 2005 (i.e., VERY large non-trivial, worldwide topic). Mark sections needing citations, then remove undocumented statements. Preserve "stub" status until more solid. I have added 50 citations within a few minutes; actually, this article had over 40 references to published reviews/interviews (the hysteria about "message board posts" was hyperbole). Keep, since it is a new original article (not original research): there is no need to survey viewers or re-interview the cast/crew; vast amounts of external information are already available as sources from prior research behind this article. No one who worked on the film has even posted in Talk yet. Much more detail needs to be added to this article. ("You thought you knew, but you have no idea.") -Wikid77 05:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Believe it or not, some of you don't know as much as you think about this film.
• Archived for recovery. This secondary article might be deleted due to bizarre opinions, after being tagged for deletion within 10 days of creation, skipping the civilized process of potential cleanup. I have created an offline archive copy to recreate the article in another form, in case of deletion; feel free to create personal archives of the information, as well. A major point of misunderstanding is about removing a collection of opinions from Internet-forum participants, stated as such; as though forums contain no information, even as opinions, rather than citing a forum as a source of documented facts. The concept of a forum as a source of opinions, rather than a source of researched facts, seems to be over the head, beyond comprehension of several people. The zeitgeist of Wikipedia is quite primitive this year, and perhaps a revelation (or hard-fought epiphany) might occur in future months. It might be a cosmic joke that Wikipedia contains little knowledge about some major topics: Weakopedia. As of today, Wikipedia still had no World Riddle (German "Welträtsel"). Meanwhile, be prepared for the worst. Who said: Stupid is as stupid does? -Wikid77 02:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Consider article "Club Ernies" as a questionable entry for the Wackopedia; it has been unchallenged for over THREE MONTHS while the indepth description of Brokeback Mountain was slated for deletion within 7 days of being linked to the parent article. Can you say Sickipedia? I-think-you-can. Obviously any moderately intelligent person can see, after observing for just a few days, that the Wikipedia processes and guidelines are currently pathetic in the task of collecting and maintaining valuable information. Sorry, but institutionalized incompetence aggravates me. See more at: Club Ernies. -Wikid77 09:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Thank you for pointing out the questionable Club Ernies article. I agree. I've merged the content of that article into The Catcher in the Rye, and prod'd the article.
2. The question isn't whether the statments of opinion attributed to the forum participants are accurate reportings of their opinions, it's whether these opinions are encyclopedic enough to be included in Wikipedia. If I picked up the Encyclopedia Britannica, I wouldn't expect to see a movie article backed up by postings on USENET. This seems like a similar case. Forum postings are just not considered acceptable secondary sources, per the criteria at WP:Reliable sources.
3. The very title of the article is Brokeback Mountain cinematic analysis, which suggests this article is intended to be a new systhesis of analytical material, which would make it original research.
4. I went looking for other critically-acclaimed films that have had similar treatment in Wikipedia, and could find none. Admittedly, my search was hardly exhaustive, but I looked at: It Happened One Night, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (film), Gone with the Wind (film), and a couple of others. None have this sort of subjective discussion of their content.
5. I agree with Yanksox above; this is a good review and analysis, but it's just not currently not Wikipedia material.

eaolson 14:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per eaolson's search on similar well-known and analyzed movies. None of them have this sort of article in the Wikipedia. I fear that the construction of this sort of article is too much of a walk down the path of synthesis of information and original research. Or else, it is critical analysis, and Wikipedia is not the place for that. —C.Fred (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NOR. John Reid 18:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: (recommendation from the author) to end senseless debate. I will submit details about Brokeback Mountain to other venues. [No, Re-Keep (see "Re-Keep" above).] Of course, the Wikipedia contains vast amounts of subjective information on other topics: the very act of including, or rejecting, an article is a subjective opinion, no matter how well rationalized as being an "objective" choice. I don't see the Wikipedia community evolving beyond this point, any time soon. Perhaps the related policy in the 20th Century, for Encyclopædia Britannica to not describe films at all, was based partly on avoiding such debates about motion-picture details. I prefer that Wikipedia continue to describe films in some detail, since storage space is no longer an issue as it had been with hard-copy Britannica; however, the Wikipedia zeitgeist is not yet ready to describe films in terms of musical composition, symbolism, film editing, cinematography, sound editing, etc. A motion-picture encyclopedia would be a more receptive and sophisticated venue for those details. It is very telling that the most honored film of 2005, some say of all time, cannot be described in detail within today's Wikipedia community: very interesting. -Wikid77 19:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • This is at least your third vote. And note that attempting to add unsourced self-written commentary into other articles won't get you far, either. --InShaneee 15:24, 11 June 2006 (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.