264:
Disagree on being in minor festivals qualifying for GNG. The other point you're referring to is that the "film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career," but that it should be have its
265:
own article "only if there is enough information on it that it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there." If Mike Reid is notable, then it seems unliklely that there would be too much about this film to include in an article on him.
248:, and coverage from 4 film festivals satisfies that. Also, I remember a criterion that mentioned a film being notable when it marked an important point in a contributing person's career. Since this is Mike Reid's last film, I'd say that would qualify. -
204:
the external links need NOT be independent of the subject... the sources must so be... and they are. The nom's statement should not be taken as a refutation of notability because of the use of external links, as they are not what establishes notability.
116:
148:
The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.
326:
contributing person's career. The nom will certainly disagree, but that's why we are here. Further, I have just done a bit of cleanup of the article per film MOS.
290:
271:
186:
17:
180:
The references given do not amount to "significant coverage", and the external links are not "independent of the subject."
83:
78:
87:
140:
None of the criteria in this grouping is applicable as five years have not elapsed since the film's initial release
70:
355:
335:
232:
214:
151:
The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.
36:
354:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
131:
The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.
253:
145:
Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.
173:
The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.
328:
266:
228:
207:
181:
340:
305:
276:
255:
236:
219:
191:
52:
154:
The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.
249:
301:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
323:
74:
315:
245:
297:
201:
124:
49:
104:
159:
The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.
138:
The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:
319:
66:
58:
322:'s last film, it further qualifies as being a final landmark in a
127:
gives an admittedly nonexhaustive list of reasons for inclusion:
348:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
318:
the extensive coverage shows notability. Further, as this is
166:
The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.
111:
100:
96:
92:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
358:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
291:list of Film-related deletion discussions
289:: This debate has been included in the
244:. Those criteria are in addition to the
7:
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
341:21:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
306:04:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
277:15:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
256:15:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
237:14:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
227:Good evidence of notability.
220:21:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
192:01:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
53:01:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
246:general notability guideline
314:in agreement with Mgm. Per
375:
351:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
175:No evidence of such.
168:No evidence of such
161:No evidence of such
133:No evidence of such
125:notability of films
308:
294:
123:The guideline on
366:
353:
331:
295:
285:
274:
269:
210:
189:
184:
114:
108:
90:
44:The result was
34:
374:
373:
369:
368:
367:
365:
364:
363:
362:
356:deletion review
349:
329:
272:
267:
229:ChildofMidnight
208:
187:
182:
110:
81:
65:
62:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
372:
370:
361:
360:
344:
343:
309:
282:
281:
280:
279:
259:
258:
239:
222:
178:
177:
171:
164:
157:
156:
155:
152:
149:
146:
136:
121:
120:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
371:
359:
357:
352:
346:
345:
342:
339:
338:
337:
333:
332:
325:
321:
317:
313:
310:
307:
303:
299:
292:
288:
284:
283:
278:
275:
270:
263:
262:
261:
260:
257:
254:
251:
247:
243:
240:
238:
234:
230:
226:
223:
221:
218:
217:
216:
212:
211:
203:
199:
196:
195:
194:
193:
190:
185:
176:
172:
169:
165:
162:
158:
153:
150:
147:
144:
143:
141:
137:
134:
130:
129:
128:
126:
118:
113:
106:
102:
98:
94:
89:
85:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
63:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
350:
347:
336:
334:
327:
311:
286:
241:
224:
215:
213:
206:
197:
179:
174:
167:
160:
139:
132:
122:
45:
43:
31:
28:
320:Mike Reid
298:• Gene93k
67:Jack Says
59:Jack Says
330:Schmidt,
209:Schmidt,
117:View log
324:notable
198:Comment
84:protect
79:history
50:John254
316:WP:GNG
112:delete
88:delete
273:matic
268:Bongo
202:WP:EL
188:matic
183:Bongo
115:) – (
105:views
97:watch
93:links
16:<
312:Keep
302:talk
287:Note
242:Keep
233:talk
225:Keep
200:Per
101:logs
75:talk
71:edit
46:keep
296:--
293:.
250:Mgm
304:)
235:)
142:.
103:|
99:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
77:|
73:|
48:.
300:(
252:|
231:(
170:.
163:.
135:.
119:)
109:(
107:)
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.