312:? The ScreenDaily ref is a 3 paragraph article telling us someone got the rights to distribute it. Not much about the Not sure that can be called significant. Yes, there is a review in Las Vegas Weekly. As I pointed out in the nom, there was brief coverage in Vegas papers during the film festival, where a number of films are covered. Again, a 4 paragraph review, the longest which is telling us who the characters are. The Sun article? Actually more about a publicity stunt. efilmcritic? A site that specializes in finding films at festivals and questionably reliable. And the Filmmaker ref was addressed in the nom.....the article is about the camera, not so much the film. Sorry, I'm stil not seeing the significant coverage aside from some mentions in the Vegas papers during the local festival, which I mentioned in the nom.
198:
and doesn't mention the film at all. The third is much of the first article reprinted and just some updated material added to. The second is an article about the type of camera used to film this movie (and another movie) and really has little to do with the movie itself. Minor attempt at notability by saying it is the first
228:
are not yet met but, should the film be widely released at a later date, then it will satisfy criterion 1 of the guideline which requires it to be (i) widely distributed and (ii) to have received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. The second part of the criterion requirement
341:
gives this explanation of "trivial coverage": newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews," plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as "Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide," "Time Out Film Guide," or the
Internet Movie Database". As I
197:
coverage in multiple reliable sources. A couple of gnews hits, but almost all are simply mentions of the title in a list of films being shown at the Vegas film festival, which the film dodn't win any awards at. Article cites 3 sources (all the same magazine). The first is totally about the director
380:
is not met, I concede that and I'm not trying to argue whether or not it has been satisfied. What I was trying to say by discussing the points of satisfaction of criterion 1 is that, same as with any other policy or guideline, a certain amount of common sense should be used in order to improve
385:
to a reasonable degree. What I mean by that is that if this was an article whose subject has not had any coverage to prove itself notable (and in that sense is unlikely to be searched on
Knowledge by a reader) and is unlikely to ever become notable, then its inclusion in Knowledge is, in all
438:
of the film, because a couple got married going into it, or something like that...The entire plot section is completely unsourced, and reads like a promotional. There are no reviews of the film. In short, there is nothing to write an article with, and it doesn't meet the GNG.
398:(by being widely released), then the subject should warrant its own article. The indication here is that a notable subject will possibly satisfy even stricter notability criteria in the future in addition to the general notability criteria which it already satisfies.
336:
article is about the use of the camera, yes, but it specifically mentions and discusses the film in a non-trivial manner. Since WP:N applies to all topics that could possibly be covered by
Knowledge, it does not elaborate on what "trivial" means but
597:
he put into the article since it was first nominated to address original concerns. The article is now enclyclopedic, well-sourced, and notability shown. It improves the project to have this article remain and further grow. Good job Big Bird!
162:
350:; it only need be mentioned in a non-trivial manner and, per the explanation of "trivial" by WP:FILMNOT, the article definitely speaks of the film in a non-trivial manner. As far as other articles are concerned,
245:
has obtained global distribution rights to the film so this should be treated as an indication that the film might be widely released at some point. Even barring that scenario, the film still passes the
420:
I'm sorry, those links don't look like significant coverage to me. I saw most of them when I looked at coverage before I nominated the article. We'll see what others think. 03:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
156:
123:
258:
or, for that matter, it trumps any other specialized versions of the general guideline. The film is, then, notable by virtue of significant coverage in the following sources:
366:
are full-length reviews by virtue of offering critical commentary rather than being a mere description of the film's plot. They are all reliable publications conforming to
507:
90:
85:
94:
77:
270:. As the nominating editor mentioned, the main topic of last link is cinematography but the film is mentioned in a non-trivial manner and
177:
144:
238:
237:. Currently, though, the film does not satisfy the first portion of that criterion due to not having been widely distributed but
17:
355:
263:
576:
471:
408:
290:
457:
The particular plot in place at the moment seems to have been plagiarized but that will soon be fixed. Just a note that per
138:
358:
is an article from a reliable source that discusses the film's premiere as well as the publicity stunt at it's showing;
351:
259:
134:
680:
661:
640:
623:
607:
581:
551:
522:
497:
476:
448:
413:
321:
295:
215:
59:
81:
280:, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material".
695:
603:
493:
184:
36:
694:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
202:
film using that type of camera, but it wasn't the first film, just the first indie one. In general, film fails
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
242:
657:
317:
211:
73:
65:
150:
675:
599:
489:
272:
636:
620:
444:
170:
354:
is an interview with the director of the film that specifically and in detail discusses the film;
572:
467:
458:
404:
363:
286:
234:
332:
is met by virtue of all of the above links which mention the film in a non-trivial manner. The
395:
377:
338:
309:
305:
255:
225:
203:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
653:
533:
313:
267:
207:
670:
434:. None of the sources are particularly about the film. The most in depth one is about the
632:
616:
518:
440:
55:
590:
567:
462:
399:
382:
281:
544:
391:
367:
111:
387:
371:
359:
347:
329:
277:
251:
247:
230:
342:
pointed out earlier, the film itself does not need to be the main topic of the
461:, the plot does not need a source since the film itself is a primary source.
514:
50:
206:. Not suitable for redirect since there is no article about the director.
669:
and a nod to Big Bird for above-and-beyond work cleaning this one up. –
488:
Sufficiently notable to be worth including based on reliable coverage.
538:
to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
649:
688:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
386:
probability, unwarranted. But if the subject already passes
594:
563:
118:
107:
103:
99:
169:
652:since it's actively being considered for deletion.
543:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
562:As a reference to editors new to this discussion,
566:was the version that was nominated for deletion.
370:so, combined, they should all reasonably satisfy
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
698:). No further edits should be made to this page.
381:Knowledge, basically employing the spirit of
304:So what you are saying is that it might meet
183:
8:
631:- I think MichaelQ said everything needed
502:
508:list of Film-related deletion discussions
506:: This debate has been included in the
346:article, as specifically spelled out by
276:is definitely a reliable source. Per
7:
193:Non-notable indie film that lacks
24:
390:and we have an indication from a
229:is met by virtue of reviews by
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
681:21:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
662:21:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
648:: I removed this article from
641:20:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
624:20:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
608:05:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
60:21:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
1:
582:02:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
552:20:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
523:16:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
498:21:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
477:19:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
449:19:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
414:19:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
322:18:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
296:18:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
248:general notability guidelines
216:15:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
308:in the future? You men like
715:
615:per User:MichaelQSchmidt.
595:tremendous amount of work
691:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
243:Shoreline Entertainment
74:Asylum Seekers (film)
66:Asylum Seekers (film)
394:that it will pass
268:Filmmaker Magazine
44:The result was
580:
554:
525:
511:
475:
412:
328:My point is that
294:
224:The criteria for
706:
693:
678:
673:
570:
549:
542:
540:
536:
512:
465:
402:
364:Las Vegas Weekly
284:
235:Las Vegas Weekly
188:
187:
173:
121:
115:
97:
34:
714:
713:
709:
708:
707:
705:
704:
703:
702:
696:deletion review
689:
676:
671:
600:MichaelQSchmidt
589:with thanks to
545:
534:
531:
490:ChildofMidnight
392:reliable source
241:indicates that
130:
117:
88:
72:
69:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
712:
710:
701:
700:
684:
683:
664:
643:
626:
610:
584:
556:
555:
541:
528:
527:
526:
500:
482:
481:
480:
479:
452:
451:
428:
427:
426:
425:
424:
423:
422:
421:
375:
325:
324:
299:
298:
254:always trumps
191:
190:
127:
68:
63:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
711:
699:
697:
692:
686:
685:
682:
679:
674:
668:
665:
663:
659:
655:
651:
647:
644:
642:
638:
634:
630:
627:
625:
622:
618:
614:
611:
609:
605:
601:
596:
592:
591:User:Big Bird
588:
585:
583:
578:
574:
569:
565:
561:
558:
557:
553:
550:
548:
539:
537:
530:
529:
524:
520:
516:
509:
505:
501:
499:
495:
491:
487:
484:
483:
478:
473:
469:
464:
460:
456:
455:
454:
453:
450:
446:
442:
437:
433:
430:
429:
419:
418:
417:
416:
415:
410:
406:
401:
397:
393:
389:
384:
379:
376:
373:
369:
365:
361:
357:
353:
349:
345:
340:
335:
331:
327:
326:
323:
319:
315:
311:
307:
303:
302:
301:
300:
297:
292:
288:
283:
279:
275:
274:
269:
265:
264:Las Vegas Sun
261:
257:
253:
249:
244:
240:
236:
232:
227:
223:
220:
219:
218:
217:
213:
209:
205:
201:
196:
186:
182:
179:
176:
172:
168:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
136:
133:
132:Find sources:
128:
125:
120:
113:
109:
105:
101:
96:
92:
87:
83:
79:
75:
71:
70:
67:
64:
62:
61:
57:
53:
52:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
690:
687:
666:
645:
628:
612:
586:
559:
546:
532:
503:
485:
435:
431:
343:
333:
271:
239:this article
221:
199:
194:
192:
180:
174:
166:
159:
153:
147:
141:
131:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
654:Daniel Case
459:WP:FILMPLOT
360:eFilmCritic
314:Niteshift36
266:as well as
231:eFilmCritic
208:Niteshift36
195:significant
157:free images
396:WP:FILMNOT
378:WP:FILMNOT
339:WP:NOTFILM
310:WP:CRYSTAL
306:WP:FILMNOT
256:WP:FILMNOT
226:WP:FILMNOT
204:WP:FILMNOT
633:Hutch1970
441:Quantpole
436:publicity
344:Filmmaker
334:Filmmaker
273:Filmmaker
260:indieWIRE
593:for the
577:contribs
568:Big Bird
560:Comment:
535:Relisted
472:contribs
463:Big Bird
409:contribs
400:Big Bird
291:contribs
282:Big Bird
124:View log
547:JForget
163:WP refs
151:scholar
91:protect
86:history
617:ninety
432:Delete
383:WP:IAR
135:Google
119:delete
95:delete
677:scent
672:iride
650:T:DYK
368:WP:RS
222:Keep.
200:indie
178:JSTOR
139:books
122:) – (
112:views
104:watch
100:links
16:<
667:Keep
658:talk
646:Note
637:talk
629:Keep
613:Keep
604:talk
587:Keep
573:talk
564:this
519:talk
515:PC78
504:Note
494:talk
486:Keep
468:talk
445:talk
405:talk
388:WP:N
372:WP:N
362:and
356:this
352:this
348:WP:N
330:WP:N
318:talk
287:talk
278:WP:N
252:WP:N
250:and
233:and
212:talk
171:FENS
145:news
108:logs
82:talk
78:edit
56:talk
51:Cirt
46:keep
621:one
185:TWL
660:)
639:)
606:)
575:•
521:)
510:.
496:)
470:•
447:)
407:•
320:)
289:•
262:,
214:)
165:)
110:|
106:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
84:|
80:|
58:)
48:.
656:(
635:(
619::
602:(
579:)
571:(
517:(
513:—
492:(
474:)
466:(
443:(
411:)
403:(
374:.
316:(
293:)
285:(
210:(
189:)
181:·
175:·
167:·
160:·
154:·
148:·
142:·
137:(
129:(
126:)
116:(
114:)
76:(
54:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.