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. — TKD::Talk 08:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phantofilm[edit]

Neologism apparently invented solely for this exhibition/film. At first I considered merging it into phantogram (which I'm currently in the process of fixing up and getting decent references for), but the only source given is primary, so there's a problem meeting WP:V here. There may also be a WP:COI issue too, as the article creator (User:Billycowie) is the same name as the creator of the named film as stated in this edit to the phantogram article. Without showing there have been other moving phantograms and that this term is used to describe them generally, I can't see how this can be a viable article. ~Matticus ^T_C 23:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Normally I would say "merge" here, but Matticus is an experienced editor, and if he says he can't find independent references to bolster the use of this term, I defer to his judgment. Shalom ^Hello 01:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At last an article on Phantofilm. In my experience at stereoscopic societies this is the generally accepted term for the moving phantogram many of which are under production. I know of several articles being written on the phantofilm for various magazines and at least one chapter in a new book on stereoscopic techniques. Watch this space! Raymiles100— Raymiles100 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Could you provide more detailed information about these articles and book please? If you can add reliable sources to the article then please do so. Without them the lack of verifiability is still a problem. ~Matticus ^T_C 09:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —~Matticus ^T_C 09:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lacking Wp:v. Matticus obviously know what he is doing!— Ipcressfile (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
added some more info and references to the page - unfortunately wikipedia seems to have timed me out and then put in the edit without any warning under my ip address. THINK THIS IS A SERIOUS ISSUE WIKIPEDIA!!! that should be looked at as people can be traced with the IP numbers. RAYMILES100

On the technical issue, you should tick the box "remember me" on the login page, then your login won't time out (unless your browser cookies are cleared or get corrupted). I wouldn't panic though - there's not much information the general public can glean from an IP address alone.

On the references you have added, thanks for doing that, but I've checked them out and I don't see anything specifically about phantofilms there. Three of the references lead to pages about a 3D art project also by Cowie called "Men in the Wall"[1], but as far as I can tell it is a set of four anaglyph videos (i.e film projected onto a flat screen, viewed from the front through blue and red filter glasses), no different in principle from any other 3D anaglyph film. Likewise the Liz Aggiss "3D Queen of Brighton" - there is nothing in the text I could find to suggest it is anything other than a regular 3D film. As interesting as these art projects are, they are not moving phantograms (i.e. anamorphically distorted images intended to be viewed from a steep angle) as described in the article. Only the "In the Flesh" film/art project fits the description, and there's nothing to prove anyone other than Cowie is using the term. ~Matticus ^T_C 14:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Raymiles100 thanks for your contributions to the page, doubt if it will do any good, you cant fight city hall after all! Have copied your text and will resubmit it once the term is so ubiquitous that even the wikis will have to accept it. All the best. --Billycowie 22:07, 3 August 2007 (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.