880:" None of the numerous sources you have found are independent because they are all just repeating what the film's director and producer say. Yes, (for instance) reason.com and thefreelibrary.com are independent organisations, but we're not hearing them: they are reporting, in identical words, what Rob Pfaltzgraff of MPI told them. All these sources come back to the producers; nobody has anything
585:
still (not sure if I needed to revote or not). I'm adding more information as I get it, and put a link to the movie's entry on
Flixter today. I feel that the movie obviously is "notable" enough in that the blogosphere has exploded with questions about 2081. Isn't this the point of Knowledge (XXG) -
543:
I am hoping the next few days of the AFd will see a continued set of improvements by the author, as it has already been improved in the 36 hours since it was created and the 36 hours minus 8 minutes since it was tagged and the 36 hours minus 1 hour since it was sent to AfD. Why the big hurry to get
304:) - I was an extra in this film. It wrapped months ago. There are numerous references to it on the web. IMDB is, very often, NOT used by filmmakers who are not inside the studio system (I should know as I have appeared in sveral films and found them all to have taken FOREVER to appear on IMDB)
828:
and threw the material onto the Wiki, which now has budget, anticipated release schedule and more casting information. The article also should verify that the movie is happening (in a reasonable timeframe), and also gives more information on the director, Chandler Tuttle. Assuming things end well
427:
Moving the goalposts since
Crystal and NFF were dismissed? Nahhhhh... you are just showing a well respected concern for the article's notibility or lack. I can't ignore the MPI cites, for they cannot be lumped together with sites at Sony about a Sony film or sites at TriStar about a TriStar film.
738:, which recognizes that time and events and needs change and so encourages boldness in improving Wikippedia. That aside, Giro voted above and I KNOW he is more knowledgable than am I. He is quite right in that the article needs attention, but also in that it has passed your initial concerns of
456:
must be considered in relationship to the claim being made, as in "The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context", and "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require
507:
Non-profits may not promote their own work to make money, but they'll still want to promote that which they funded and support. If independent sources existed, then it would be okay to reference the MPI stuff, but I'm very wary of building an article around them.
675:. "Widely distributed... two full-length reviews... historically notable... major award for excellence.. " They're thinking of something on quite a different level from this. You couldn't achieve that sort of notability before release; and indeed lower down "
684:
You see "the blogosphere exploding with questions... " I'm afraid I see promoters who haven't got a release arranged planting their press release in as many blogs as possible, hoping to stir up interest. It's not
Knowledge (XXG)'s job to help them.
878:'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.
48:- arguments both ways are strong; while it appears to be on the edge of deletion due to notability, the sources presented do seem to indicate there are references available. Hopefully, those sources will improve the article.
391:
independent - they funded the film and in fact the article says they "produced" it. Everything else I can find on the web is blog-type discussion and speculation, so many of them using the same words starting
908:
Yes, and even tougher for an unreleased short. If it were a multi-million dolllar blockbuster, it would have more coverage. However, I will still stand by my comments above... even more I suppose because it
604:
No, you don't get to !vote twice (although the ! in front of !vote is a reminder that it's not a count). I've put a "strike-through" on your second "keep", which is the usual procedure. No offence intended.
848:- I have to admire your industry and determination, but I am still not convinced. All these new sources are either pointers back to the old ones or interviews with the director or producer or MPI staff.
889:
However, it's not up to me. I have said my piece, and will shut up and leave it to the unfortunate closing admin who has got to read through all this and decide whose arguments s/he prefers.
485:
of 1995, in conjunction with the article's cites and sources when making my determination. So with the greatest of respect, I think the article squeeks in with notability (even if minor).
648:
The trailer has been creating a lot of buzz on many film blogs. It seems to take some of the concepts of Philip K Dick and P D James. The trailer has some really interesting images...
149:
The trailer has been creating a lot of buzz on many film blogs. It seems to take some of the concepts of Philip K Dick and P D James. The trailer has some really interesting images...
884:
to say because nobody has seen the film. Yes, that makes it almost impossible for an unreleased film to achieve notability, and that's why unreleased films almost never have articles.
121:
703:
Sorry John... and thank you for the compliment... but I will adhere to my points as made above. I respect you quoting guideline, and respect the guidelines... but again, "
179:
412:. However since more information has been added since the nomination, I have notified everyone who has !voted so far, so that they can revisit it if they wish.
677:
films that... have not yet been publicly released... should not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines.
207:. It appears that it's been filmed, but not yet scheduled for distribution. Hopefully, it will be shown sometime during the next 73 years. Great story by
473:
does allow an editor to consider the involved parties in a film in considering its notability. I am thus "considering" the genre-changing notability of
432:
is a non-profit organization, while the others are companies for profit. A better comparison about MPI as a source might be the articles about the
229:
704:
466:
363:
It does seem to be demonstrated that the film exists, but (I'm sorry if I seem to be moving the goalposts) there is still the question of
17:
311:
566:- definitely needs some work, but it has notable actors and has been shot already. Sourcing is problematic, but not delete-worthy.
136:, but I don't think a two-and-a-half minute trailer is evidence that the film has commenced principal photography as required by
88:
83:
802:
92:
824:
I checked out the links
Michael provided and did a little more research on my own as well... I found some neat new stuff on
1042:
Final (I hope - this must be going to the wire soon) comment from nominator - I do not believe it "most definitely passes
571:
867:
374:
75:
1079:
660:
Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works must be
457:
high-quality sources", and in the context offered, and in that no exception claim is being made, the MPI source passes
36:
786:
437:
871:
378:
1032:
922:
814:
763:
724:
553:
531:
494:
349:
1078:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
567:
482:
429:
384:
277:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
774:
433:
307:
263:
654:
has got to be something more than just repeating the makers' web-site and (probably) press release. From
985:
960:
513:
315:
1059:
1037:
992:
967:
945:
927:
898:
838:
829:
with this, I intend to (hopefully) create / work on Mr. Tuttle's Wiki page in the near future as well.
819:
798:
768:
729:
694:
638:. In fact on all the different sites I have found, there are only two sets of words: the ones that go "
614:
595:
575:
558:
536:
517:
499:
421:
354:
319:
292:
268:
245:
220:
194:
168:
57:
1025:
915:
807:
756:
717:
627:
546:
524:
487:
342:
1008:
739:
333:
152:
216:
830:
587:
329:
284:
782:
53:
854:
672:
655:
405:
401:
397:
368:
254:
715:, per policy, I am allowed to consider all factors. I have done so. With the greatest respect,
941:
834:
825:
591:
478:
288:
258:
204:
189:
147:- Google search finds discussion on blogs and film sites, all seeming to use the same words: "
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
129:
1055:
978:
953:
894:
690:
610:
509:
417:
164:
79:
1043:
1020:
1012:
743:
735:
440:
that repeatedly source the organizations themselves. I have great deal of respect for such
337:
156:
137:
1016:
747:
462:
144:
141:
241:
212:
861:
751:
712:
458:
449:
474:
208:
49:
1000:
937:
186:
794:
635:
109:
1051:
890:
686:
606:
413:
396:" which I quoted above, that one suspects a common origin. Read the sections of
301:
281:
160:
71:
63:
469:". Further, and with complete understanding that "notability is not inherited,
778:
233:
936:
Please do not delete this article. I do not think it deserves to be deleted.
679:" That might apply to a forthcoming Harry Potter or James Bond, but not here.
280:
has been added as a credible source. This should address the deletion issue.
652:
Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject
453:
237:
522:
Ahhhh... but the independent sources do exist, they are simply "tertiary".
441:
1019:
was addressed, and specially since this article most definitely passes
630:
is doing a good job on behalf of the angels... The
Flixter website adds
650:" Nobody has anything else to say, because nobody knows anything else.
470:
445:
394:
The trailer has been creating a lot of buzz on many film blogs...
586:
to be flexible enough to answer questions as soon as they arise?
1072:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
790:
634:
because it copies exactly, word for word, what's on the film's
133:
253:
per nom and PC78. Very little coverage, not enough to satisfy
132:. PROD removed by author when he added a link to a trailer on
408:: I just don't think this unreleased short film qualifies as
734:
Further, there is always the most basic policy of all:
406:
Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films
116:
105:
101:
97:
236:, but it's not nearly enough to establish notability.
232:
reveals very little; best I can find is a mention in
626:- I'm sorry to keep being the devil's advocate, but
448:, and because the guidelines rely on the policy at
128:Article about a forthcoming film. No release date,
1015:were quickly addressed, and then a new concern of
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1082:). No further edits should be made to this page.
952:Could you please cite a valid reason? Thanks.
644:...an act of defiance that changes everything.
853:Yes, Michael, policies trump guidelines, but
282:http://www.thempi.org/cgi-local/film.cgi?f=21
8:
913:a short. For what it is, it has notability.
775:New York Times artticle on Thor Halvorssen
1003:to give a reason and then yourself voted
864:, and when we fall back to that we read "
805:. One or more of these might be helpful.
300:(copied from a message on my talk page -
180:list of Film-related deletion discussions
178:: This debate has been included in the
705:policies take precedent over guidelines
467:policies take precedent over guidelines
151:" - sounds like a press release. Fails
1023:, what were your own valid reasons?
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
857:is just there to help interpret the
24:
1050:of the makers and their backers.
707:"... guidelines are just that...
446:Evidence of Notability guidelines
773:Other URL's for external links:
479:"Harrison Bergeron" short story
471:"Other evidence of notability"
1:
801:, and I don't read or speak
1060:19:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
1038:18:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
993:18:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
968:18:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
946:05:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
928:02:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
899:19:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
839:14:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
826:America's Future Foundation
820:01:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
769:00:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
730:22:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
695:21:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
673:WP:MOVIE#General principles
615:21:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
596:14:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
576:01:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
559:23:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
537:22:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
518:22:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
500:22:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
422:20:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
355:19:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
320:00:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
293:15:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
269:01:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
246:23:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
221:20:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
195:16:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
169:15:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
58:20:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
1099:
1046:", which requires sources
640:Based on a short story...
438:American Heart Association
646:", and the ones that go "
1075:Please do not modify it.
1007:. The Nom's concerns of
866:significant coverage in
746:, and furthe has passed
483:"Harrison Bergeron" film
444:. Based upon the quoted
385:Moving Picture Institute
373:significant coverage in
278:Moving Picture Institute
32:Please do not modify it.
664:writing about the film.
434:American Cancer Society
361:Comment by nominator:
568:Girolamo Savonarola
544:this out of here?
328:as source found by
264:robe and wizard hat
134:the film's web-site
799:brain-terminal.com
783:TheFreeLibrary.com
481:, and the notable
402:General principles
371:, which requires "
461:and subsequently
340:no longer apply.
322:
310:comment added by
267:
205:Harrison Bergeron
197:
183:
56:
1090:
1077:
1028:
989:
982:
964:
957:
918:
868:reliable sources
810:
795:Finallyequal.com
759:
720:
549:
527:
490:
375:reliable sources
345:
305:
261:
192:
184:
174:
140:. I can find no
119:
113:
95:
52:
44:The result was
34:
1098:
1097:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1080:deletion review
1073:
1026:
987:
980:
962:
955:
916:
874:of the subject.
808:
791:Atlasnetwork.tv
757:
718:
628:MichaelQSchmidt
547:
525:
488:
454:Reliable Source
381:of the subject.
343:
190:
145:reliable source
130:nothing on IMDb
115:
86:
70:
67:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1096:
1094:
1085:
1084:
1067:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1005:Delete per nom
996:
995:
971:
970:
949:
948:
933:
932:
931:
930:
903:
902:
886:
885:
850:
849:
843:
842:
841:
822:
771:
732:
711:. In deciding
698:
697:
681:
680:
668:
667:
656:WP:MOVIE#Notes
620:
619:
618:
617:
599:
598:
578:
561:
541:
540:
539:
502:
477:, the notable
367:as defined in
358:
357:
323:
295:
271:
248:
234:this interview
223:
198:
126:
125:
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1095:
1083:
1081:
1076:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1061:
1057:
1053:
1049:
1045:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1030:
1029:
1022:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1006:
1002:
998:
997:
994:
991:
990:
984:
983:
976:
973:
972:
969:
966:
965:
959:
958:
951:
950:
947:
943:
939:
935:
934:
929:
926:
925:
924:
920:
919:
912:
907:
906:
905:
904:
900:
896:
892:
888:
887:
883:
879:
875:
873:
869:
863:
860:
856:
852:
851:
847:
844:
840:
836:
832:
827:
823:
821:
818:
817:
816:
812:
811:
804:
800:
796:
792:
788:
784:
780:
776:
772:
770:
767:
766:
765:
761:
760:
753:
749:
745:
741:
737:
733:
731:
728:
727:
726:
722:
721:
714:
710:
706:
702:
701:
700:
699:
696:
692:
688:
683:
682:
678:
674:
670:
669:
665:
663:
657:
653:
649:
645:
641:
637:
633:
629:
625:
622:
621:
616:
612:
608:
603:
602:
601:
600:
597:
593:
589:
584:
583:
579:
577:
573:
569:
565:
562:
560:
557:
556:
555:
551:
550:
542:
538:
535:
534:
533:
529:
528:
521:
520:
519:
515:
511:
506:
503:
501:
498:
497:
496:
492:
491:
484:
480:
476:
475:Kurt Vonnegut
472:
468:
464:
460:
455:
451:
447:
443:
439:
435:
431:
426:
425:
424:
423:
419:
415:
411:
407:
403:
399:
395:
390:
386:
382:
380:
376:
370:
366:
362:
356:
353:
352:
351:
347:
346:
339:
335:
331:
327:
324:
321:
317:
313:
309:
303:
299:
296:
294:
290:
286:
283:
279:
275:
272:
270:
265:
260:
256:
252:
249:
247:
243:
239:
235:
231:
230:Google search
227:
224:
222:
218:
214:
210:
209:Kurt Vonnegut
206:
202:
199:
196:
193:
188:
181:
177:
173:
172:
171:
170:
166:
162:
158:
154:
150:
146:
143:
139:
135:
131:
123:
118:
111:
107:
103:
99:
94:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
69:
68:
65:
62:
60:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1074:
1071:
1066:
1047:
1033:
1031:
1024:
1004:
986:
979:
974:
961:
954:
923:
921:
914:
910:
881:
877:
865:
858:
845:
815:
813:
806:
764:
762:
755:
725:
723:
716:
708:
676:
662:someone else
661:
659:
651:
647:
643:
639:
636:own web-site
631:
623:
581:
580:
563:
554:
552:
545:
532:
530:
523:
504:
495:
493:
486:
409:
393:
388:
372:
364:
360:
359:
350:
348:
341:
325:
297:
273:
259:Doctorfluffy
250:
225:
200:
175:
148:
127:
46:No consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
1048:independent
882:independent
872:independent
803:Russian (?)
709:guidelines'
642:" down to "
510:Movingboxes
379:independent
312:70.18.28.64
306:—Preceding
142:independent
72:2081 (film)
64:2081 (film)
1009:WP:Crystal
999:You asked
779:Reason.com
740:WP:Crystal
365:notability
153:WP:CRYSTAL
977:Per nom.
870:that are
377:that are
213:Mandsford
1027:Schmidt,
917:Schmidt,
855:WP:MOVIE
809:Schmidt,
758:Schmidt,
719:Schmidt,
548:Schmidt,
526:Schmidt,
489:Schmidt,
452:where a
442:altruism
398:WP:MOVIE
369:WP:MOVIE
344:Schmidt,
308:unsigned
255:WP:MOVIE
122:View log
50:Tony Fox
1001:Fangusu
938:Fangusu
876:" and "
846:Comment
831:JayLv99
632:nothing
624:Comment
588:JayLv99
465:since "
410:notable
400:headed
330:JayLv99
298:Comment
285:JayLv99
187:the wub
89:protect
84:history
1052:JohnCD
1044:WP:GNG
1021:WP:GNG
1013:WP:NFF
988:Galaxy
975:Delete
963:Galaxy
891:JohnCD
859:policy
787:URLFan
744:WP:NFF
736:WP:IAR
687:JohnCD
607:JohnCD
505:Delete
414:JohnCD
383:" The
334:cystal
332:shows
302:JohnCD
251:Delete
226:Delete
161:JohnCD
157:WP:NFF
138:WP:NFF
117:delete
93:delete
54:(arf!)
1017:WP:NF
748:WP:NF
671:Read
463:WP:RS
201:Merge
120:) – (
110:views
102:watch
98:links
16:<
1056:talk
1011:and
981:Lady
956:Lady
942:talk
895:talk
862:WP:N
835:talk
752:WP:V
750:and
742:and
713:WP:N
691:talk
611:talk
592:talk
582:Keep
572:talk
564:Keep
514:talk
459:WP:V
450:WP:V
418:talk
404:and
387:are
336:and
326:Keep
316:talk
289:talk
276:the
274:Keep
242:talk
238:PC78
217:talk
191:"?!"
176:Note
165:talk
155:and
106:logs
80:talk
76:edit
658:: "
436:or
430:MPI
389:not
338:NFF
203:to
185:--
182:.
1058:)
944:)
911:is
897:)
837:)
797:,
793:,
789:,
785:,
781:,
777:,
754:.
693:)
613:)
594:)
574:)
516:)
420:)
318:)
291:)
257:.
244:)
228:.
219:)
211:.
167:)
159:.
108:|
104:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
82:|
78:|
1054:(
940:(
901:]
893:(
833:(
689:(
666:"
609:(
590:(
570:(
512:(
416:(
392:"
314:(
287:(
266:)
262:(
240:(
215:(
163:(
124:)
114:(
112:)
74:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.