Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Landscape of Lies

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 keep. Guerillero | My Talk 04:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Landscape of Lies

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It might be "notable" as it is a failed multi-million fraud case, my only real issue with this article that it is neither notable as a film project (which only exist in a trailer form) (per WP:NFF) nor as a fraud case (per WP:N/CA and WP:CRIME) which is what this film project literally is. Almost all of the news coverage came from when those involved were found guilty just like every other cookie cutter fraudsters when they get caught. Unlike Madoff, they haven’t made enough impact enough to be that notable and there are lots of failed fraud cases that is, therefore I am very doubtful of its notability, plus 18 months later, this case seemed to be almost forgotten. Donnie Park (talk) 01:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Year:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Awards:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reviews:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Director:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Studio:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Working title:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Keep per meeting WP:GNG and thus WP:NF. Wikipedia does not care if the film was a tax scam just so long as it gets the requisite coverage, and that it did not remain in the news, so what? The topic, as covered in-depth in numerous sources,[1] meets our notability standards. Any concerns with how to present this information can be discussed on the article's talk page, and does not require deletion because its filmmakers were naughty. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these sources were after the defendants were found guilty just like every other cases out there but whilst the case was progressing, did it get any news coverage? No and it did get a trivial film awards which it was stripped of but there are lots of other minor film awards out there like that one they "won" and I don't think that this film festival appears to be well known outside Las Vegas as Google news shows with only 99 results, enough to warrant a mention. Let's put it this way, even Joe Bloggs can get news coverage if he get convicted of a multi-million dollar fraud case and does that mean he will get a Wikipedia article? Donnie Park (talk) 13:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The film was written, filmed, edited, was actually screened and acknowledged by peers. No matter the reasons for its creation, IT was created and is not hoax AS a film. So... no matter the ultimate reasons for such, it received coverage allowing a neutral and well-sourced article to speak about it being produced. WP:NF is met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The film only exists as a trailer according to what sources has to say and have you got proof that it exists beyond its trailer format, I mean its claimed 90 minutes version if that is what you are trying to imply. Donnie Park (talk) 20:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The rescinded award from the film festival was not assigned to a trailer, but to a completed screened film. And we do not judge notability by length, but rather by coverage. Contrary to what you assert, an official UK government source revealed that after they were charged with tax fraud "after they were arrested, the gang came up with an elaborate plan to cover their tracks and hide the fraud by shooting a film on a shoestring called A Landscape of Lies featuring two television personalities," and "...after their arrest, they tried to cover up the tax fiddle by shooting a film called A Landscape of Lies on a shoe-string budget. Rleased on DVD in 2011, it starred Loose Women presenter and former GMTV weather presenter Andrea McLean.". So it would seem that even if not the big budget film originally promised for which they were caught out for not making and then fraudulently filing for government benefits, a film was made and released on DVD. Dark as its history was, a film was made and WP:NF is met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I looked for the DVD and it still does not exist nor it does in its full format as the source imply. All of its source I can find call it a fake film so therefore it doesn't exist. Donnie Park (talk) 11:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Lost films and WP:NTEMP. It really does not matter that you cannot find it. The original concept was for a hoax project called A Landscape of Lives which was the basis for the filmmakers being prosecuted for tax fraud. As explained in numerous sources, the film A Landscape of Lies was created after they were caught and in an failed attempt to cover their asses. If it never existed, I am sure we could find one reliable source somewhere that said the cover-up film was never made... and such reveal is never said by any. Like it or not, WP:NF is met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IE: Read here just how a "fake" big-budget film became a real low-budget one. Considering the number of available sources, both WP:GNG and thus WP:NF are met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still can't see how it exists beyond its trailer format. Donnie Park (talk) 11:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Donnie, but we do not have to each visually see a film to be able to read those many sources which speak toward it's existence. Go read "lost films" and WP:NTEMP. Even if an embarrassment to honest filmmakers, it was finally made and released on DVD... a fact confirmed in multiple reliable sources, even if lost now. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, you can actually find torrents of the movie out there (not that I'm recommending that anyone illegally download anything, mind you)- which is apparently the only way to view the film now, as the DVDs are understandably unavailable now and were never made in large quantities to begin with. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't see any on Torrentz, I also looked and one is marked as fake/virus and the others have disappeared, so I am in no way to think that it exists in its full format. Donnie Park (talk) 11:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon Donnie... but it does not matter that you are personally unable to illegally download it (and matter of fact, Wikipedia does not support or encourage such illegal activities). What does matter, is that we have enough reliable sources confirming that it was at one time available on DVD. Heck, even if now unavailable, it being considered a now lost film is irrelevant. WP:NTEMP applies. It's not our issue here to convince you personally of what has been already reported in numerous reliable sources. If you do not believe them, you may write to them. Like it or not, WP:NF is met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While there isn't a lot of coverage for the film by way of reviews and whatnot on the actual film, the resulting fraud case did receive quite a bit of coverage and was even written about in an ABC-CLIO book. There are a lot of failed fraud cases out there, but it all boils down to coverage in reliable sources- which this film does have. I've added a few more sources, but overall this does seem to pass notability guidelines because at least one aspect of the film was notable (the court case) and it makes more sense to sum it up in a subsection of this article than to create a separate article solely for the court case. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of WP:BLP1E cases that get news coverage when the verdict is reached. Donnie Park (talk) 11:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please Donnie... as we are speaking about a completed film that received a great deal of coverage before, during, after, and for why it was created, WP:NF is met. WP:BLP1E is not applicable for a film which has coverage for many different aspects of its production. Coverage from 2011 through 2013 is not exactly a blip. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much what Schmidt said. This isn't something that was a flash in the pan. It gained quite a bit of coverage over a relatively long period of time and in some very solid places. Like I said, an ABC-CLIO source covered this. ABC-CLIO is an American academic publisher that puts out books that are frequently used in academic libraries and as textbooks in college courses. It's pretty well respected in its field, so a mention in one of their books is a very good sign of lasting notability. Bluntly put, when something is mentioned in an academic textbook it means that the topic (in this case the film and the resulting chaos) is pretty darn notable. This book, paired with the rather large amount of coverage in other RS, definitively shows notability in my opinion. A film's notability does not end and begin with reviews and just because someone made a movie in order to scam people does not mean that it should never be covered on Wikipedia. I mean, Highbeam lists over 20 articles ([2]) from all over the world- NPR to the Irish Times. That's more than just a flash in the pan and since the court case was specifically because of the scam surrounding the film, it counts towards overall notability for the movie. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient coverage of the film and the tax scam to have an article. --Michig (talk) 07:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.