This article was nominated for deletion on 7 November 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was snowball keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Before we get into an edit dispute, let's discuss this article. Please note on the front page I have nominated the article for deletion.
Second, I believe the section on "Charachters" and on 'Analysis' hold no encyclopedic value. The first section noted has a listing of interesting trivial statements about each characher. I believe this violates WP:TRIV since it holds no actual value. The article will not lose anything from removing this section. Further, the Analysis section simply has the director's explainations about what the meaning of the movie is. I do not believe this is notable nor is it something nessacary. Analysis from the single source of the director, further, is not real analysis. I would perfer any analysis being a movie critic discussing the themes and motifs of the film. Cheers! -- Reubzz ( talk) 21:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
That's a valid case and I agree that it could be better re-written. Though, I don't understand your nomination for the page deletion. Please explain. Endlessmug ( talk) 21:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I think we all agree the article needs a rewrite. There are too many quotes, the organization is weak, and the summary is too long, etc. I admit to being the source of some of these problems, but writing a good article can be a long process. I think I've put up some valid information and I'll slowly be trying to better form it to make a solid article with less bias, more organization, etc. Feel free to move around material, reword sections, write new sections, but please don't just stamp a notice for deletion.
I propose a solid section on the film's display of poverty & middle america. It's synthesis of pop-imagery and music. Its use of the mentally handicapped and the criticism / rebuttal surrounding. Right now the information is scattered and I think we could better clump it together. Just ideas. Endlessmug ( talk) 23:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey thanks man! It's good to see others are willing to try and fix this article. I'm finding it hard myself to know how to organize, so thanks for the links! Endlessmug ( talk) 00:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh, FYI, I've been trying to compile a bunch of information on Korine together on this page: take a look Endlessmug ( talk) 00:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
The plot summary from this article just used by Harry Hill on ITV1. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 19:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Why isn't there a category which could include this film and [Freaks]? Edison ( talk) 04:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if calling Gummo a "drama film" is exactly correct. It's not really a drama, it's more of a cross between experimental and neo-realism, imho. -- Matt723star ( talk) 15:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 7 November 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was snowball keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Before we get into an edit dispute, let's discuss this article. Please note on the front page I have nominated the article for deletion.
Second, I believe the section on "Charachters" and on 'Analysis' hold no encyclopedic value. The first section noted has a listing of interesting trivial statements about each characher. I believe this violates WP:TRIV since it holds no actual value. The article will not lose anything from removing this section. Further, the Analysis section simply has the director's explainations about what the meaning of the movie is. I do not believe this is notable nor is it something nessacary. Analysis from the single source of the director, further, is not real analysis. I would perfer any analysis being a movie critic discussing the themes and motifs of the film. Cheers! -- Reubzz ( talk) 21:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
That's a valid case and I agree that it could be better re-written. Though, I don't understand your nomination for the page deletion. Please explain. Endlessmug ( talk) 21:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I think we all agree the article needs a rewrite. There are too many quotes, the organization is weak, and the summary is too long, etc. I admit to being the source of some of these problems, but writing a good article can be a long process. I think I've put up some valid information and I'll slowly be trying to better form it to make a solid article with less bias, more organization, etc. Feel free to move around material, reword sections, write new sections, but please don't just stamp a notice for deletion.
I propose a solid section on the film's display of poverty & middle america. It's synthesis of pop-imagery and music. Its use of the mentally handicapped and the criticism / rebuttal surrounding. Right now the information is scattered and I think we could better clump it together. Just ideas. Endlessmug ( talk) 23:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey thanks man! It's good to see others are willing to try and fix this article. I'm finding it hard myself to know how to organize, so thanks for the links! Endlessmug ( talk) 00:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh, FYI, I've been trying to compile a bunch of information on Korine together on this page: take a look Endlessmug ( talk) 00:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
The plot summary from this article just used by Harry Hill on ITV1. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 19:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Why isn't there a category which could include this film and [Freaks]? Edison ( talk) 04:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if calling Gummo a "drama film" is exactly correct. It's not really a drama, it's more of a cross between experimental and neo-realism, imho. -- Matt723star ( talk) 15:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)