Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smartphone Films

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. The Keep votes do not address the issues raised with the article. There may indeed be an article to be written about this subject, but it is clear that this is not it. Black Kite (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Smartphone Films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Poorly written WP:ESSAY about an original research topic. While it's certainly possible to shoot a film with a smartphone camera, in exactly the same way as it's possible to shoot a film with any other kind of digital camera, there are no sources out there analyzing "smartphone films" as a class of thing distinct from other digitally-shot films. The sources here just discuss a couple of notable individual examples (while missing at least one other notable one, namely Tangerine — plus, this "topic" would include a considerable percentage of all the videos uploaded to YouTube), but fail to link them to each other as a group that would be defined by having been filmed on a smartphone rather than some other kind of digital camera. Plus there are some advertorial overtones here, e.g. "Today, aspiring filmmakers no longer have to go to film school to make great work. With a simple mobile phone, almost anyone can now become a filmmaker. Again and again, the cell phone films are made by many filmmakers from all over world." Bearcat (talk) 01:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think, there is no need a source to prove, smartphone films is a class of thing distinct from other digitally-shot films. Because of its first purpose of origin. Other cameras are made for only capture purpose. But, a smartphone or a mobile phone is firstly not for it. that is the difference and it is common think. another matter, any one can add suitable thinks and remove unwanted lines or links and other if any against Wikipedia policies. Many Wiki articles provides YouTube links and if it here not proper it can remove. And last one, the article is not full filled. it can expand. Tangerine any one can add at any time. So, I think these are no matters to delete the article. My thought is straightforward to the improvement of Wikipedia. Undaporiyal (talk) 02:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is in an initial stage. Every Wikipedian can do one thing here, start article with a basic information with Wikipedia Policy. maybe other Wikipedians will expand the article or the creator of the article will do it. Otherwise, after a limited time it may nominate for deletion. So, now leave the article to improve it self.210.18.172.239 (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not how Wikipedia works. It's true that an article doesn't already have to be perfect right off the bat before it's allowed to exist, but there are still specific minimum standards of notability and article quality that an article has to meet before it's allowed to exist. It's not enough to say "other editors might improve it in the future" if it hasn't even passed the miminum standards yet. Bearcat (talk) 15:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just because smartphones can be used for other things besides shooting films does not mean that films that are shot using smartphone cameras represent a unique class of thing different from films shot using digital cameras that don't also do other things. Films are defined by what they're about, not what kind of equipment happened to get used to make them. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But, we should consider, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and if anyone search about anything here, even about a single matter, It is good or not, point out of an acknowledgement with complete sense for the article's content it must be in Wikipedia. Otherwise, it is shame only for Wikipedia. Nowadays, I think, commonly speaks everywhere about these kind of movies and many film festivals are conducted only for these type of movies. There are a huge peoples behind these type of movies all over the world. Finally, my suggestion is, Wikipedia should consider articles with its reliability except like Gossip, Rumour, Accusation etc to exist them with Wikipedia other article build policies.210.18.172.239 (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be rude, but I can't make heads or tails of what you're even trying to say here. Bearcat (talk) 18:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I mean it, even a single matter, even about a rural subject, if search about them in Wikipedia, the Wikipedia can say-'that is this or that is here.' That should be Wikipedia. Other wise, Wikipedia has lost its meaning of 'Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.' encyclopedia is meaning to all acknowledgement(information), otherwise, to be maximum acknowledgement here. That should be Wikipedia. 210.18.181.121 (talk) 11:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— 210.18.181.121 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete First of all this article is, as the nominator observes, Original Research and reads like an essay. Its topic is a made up by an editor. Secondly it is exactly because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not an indiscriminate collection of information that we have to make sure our articles are about notable topics, that are known to exist as such outside Wikipedia. Because a few notable people used smartphones to make a movie, "Smartphone Films" does not become a notable topic, unless of course it starts having coverage by notable media as such. Hoverfish Talk 17:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hoverfish, Bearcat is absolutely right with his own or somebody's version. But, that is only one side view of the matter. We can't predict what a major people is thinking to. We have no other way to find out it. Because, the major people doesn't come here to participate this conversation. So, we have no other way. We should be taken a discussion upon the matter with an available majority who came to here. That is good. But, we can't say that is right.

And, one think also, we can't suggest or rigid to an article's wright up style with a style or a specific style. All Wikipeadians can't study in our school. They have their own styles. Wikipedia can't prevent an editor's wright up style. If can, that is foolishness. But, Wikipedia can suggest 'make your wright up style to be better.' 210.18.181.121 (talk) 11:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand what you are saying right, you do not understand that Wikipedia is not a democracy where people come here to vote and what the majority wants is accepted. We discuss here about the rules of Wikipedia and how they apply to individual cases, like this one. Building consensus in discussions involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. What we are discussing here is not personal preference or style, but how some rules apply. If more people are to join this discussion, they also have to understand how Wikipedia works first. Hoverfish Talk 22:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That I don't know, how to apologize for my headache. Hoverfish, I am so sorry with my misunderstanding you and Bearcat. Please forgive me both of you. I read now carefully Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Then I got my mistake and why you are against to the article. You are very able and very long time here. I just wrote my thoughts here. I am just searching and checking here with my curiosity. because, I want to learn make an article and trying for it. I don't know the article is good or not according to Wikipedia. I just argue with a common facts or thoughts. That's all. If you decide with the deletion of the article, if you think the article is unnecessary here or it is not good with its write up style you do your wish. Now I am fully convincing with you. Once again, sorry and your answer is Heartfelt to me and to all.Thank you...210.18.165.32 (talk) 00:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per nom-Poorly written- moderately right, but it is not become a serious issue and it seems lightly only top of the article. Undaporiyal cleared up nom's other questions and it is very clear that "Other cameras are made for only capture purpose. But, a smartphone or a mobile phone is firstly not for it. that is the difference". mechanically it is true that the video output format of smartphone camera is digital. But this is not a evaluation or a separation between film roll camera film and digital camera film or about a camera equipment which shot a film. It is clear that, there is a difference and novelty for smartphone films from other. Surely,"smartphone films" is a class of thing distinct from shot other camera equipment, it is digitally or film rolled. So, Smartphone Films has right to get notability 157.50.12.207 (talk) 11:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— 157.50.12.207 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The fact that it is possible to do other things with smartphones besides capturing video does not reify smartphone video as some special class of video defined by that fact per se. It's possible to do other things with conventional film cameras too. Bearcat (talk) 13:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - this article in written in poor English, and if it is to be kept, it should be written in a better style of English. Vorbee (talk) 14:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep-I have just modified the foreword of the article. Certainly this is an indispensable article here.Kaitha Poo Manam (talk) 21:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indispensable how, exactly? Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete with fire TNT. The subject of SmartPhone films is definetly notable, however, we need a proper wikipedia article that reflects what the sources say per policy. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:21, 3 September 2017 (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.