487:
initial release. * 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. * The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release. * The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema. 3. The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking. 4. The film was selected for preservation in a national archive. 5. The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program."
346:
created a website. The
Article is here so that Knowledge (XXG) has it first. When users want to search the film and the website is not yet up, they'll be able to come to Wiki and find out a small bit about it. That will be problematic if the articles been deleted. And it will certainly be problematic if it ever needs to be added again, yet the server shows it as having been deleted. Let us avoid redundancy and keep the article present, that it may now discredit the name of Knowledge (XXG) in it's absense.
480:* Media reprints of press releases, trailers, and advertising for the film. * Trivial coverage, such as 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
261:
A comment - the screenshots and clips look very cool (IMHO), but that's all you have so far. Even if you're serious, how can a garage film project like this be notable before anyone has ever watched it? Finish the film and get a distributor for it (or at least a few thousand
Youtube viewers) and then
510:
If we pulled a local news article about it, I doubt any of you would refrain from dying to delete it. If fact, we'd try to post the news article on Wiki, and it would probably be speedy deleted before any of you ever had the chance to see it. Everyone seems to be so trigger happy with the deletion
408:
So what you're saying it that all the producers need to do is get the New York Times to write about their film, release it in the AMC theater, and get respective biographers to dedicate books to them? Sounds simple enough. Although, provided that all of this is available for any film article that
486:
1. The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. 2. The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following: * Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's
388:
I don't think you have grasped
Knowledge (XXG)'s notability policy. Have major newspapers written articles about your movie? Have there been books written about the filmmakers that include this film? Has this film been a theatrical release? I seriously doubt that you could answer "yes" to any of
345:
So now what you're implying is that in order advance their own person interests, the MNG placed an article on a site that is blocked from most business and educational network systems and not work-citable on any form of official research? I believe that if promotion was the goal, we'd have just
350:
Nope, no reliable secondary sources exist, if the film becomes notable and reliable secondary sources come to light, there will be no problem with recreating although I highly doubt that it will ever be significant. Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia, not a substitute for creating a website.
491:
The point is, that a topic has no chance of staying unless it has been covered by reliable secondary sources, therefore as you said, YES, a news article does have to be written about your film before it's notable. I also suggest you read:
476:
This guideline includes published works such as books, television documentaries, full-length featured newspaper articles from large circulation newspapers, full-length magazine reviews and criticism excluding the following:
409:
exists on
Knowledge (XXG), precisely what is Knowledge (XXG) doing that all the other sources are not. Notability is more than just the first link you can find on google. --
120:
155:
470:
The general guideline for notability shared by most of the subject-specific notability guidelines and
Knowledge (XXG):What Knowledge (XXG) is not, is that:
87:
82:
483:
The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with attribution in reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist:
91:
74:
512:
444:
410:
373:
312:
248:
17:
544:
Exactly, where are your sources? If you pull a local news article about it, it won't be deleted if you add it into the article per
473:
A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
296:, doesn't have any sources other than to Youtube which in itself is a copyright violation and doesn't assert notability at all.
274:
210:
326:
Because I don't believe
Youtube releases their content on GFDL, and judging by your response, it seems like we might have a
366:
Well, you haven't FOUND any reliable secondary sources. But your oversightful form of diction seems to work just as well.
230:
600:
582:
561:
535:
520:
505:
452:
437:
418:
402:
381:
360:
339:
320:
305:
280:
256:
240:
216:
194:
170:
144:
56:
36:
247:
We Assure you. The Film's no Joke. Just where would the screenshots come from? They do not just generate themselves.--
267:
203:
190:
179:
due to lack of notability. This doesn't seem to have any secondary sources having significant coverage about it. —
552:
a local news article alone does not make something notable. Still, I doubt you'll even find a local news article.
78:
599:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
531:
516:
448:
428:, it clearly says that for a movie to be notable, at least two nationally known critics have had to review it.
414:
377:
316:
252:
140:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
70:
62:
369:
557:
527:
501:
433:
398:
356:
335:
301:
166:
136:
459:
425:
390:
389:
those questions, therefore it isn't anywhere near staying on
Knowledge (XXG). I suggest reading
293:
263:
458:
one that has worked for as a main critic for a major newspaper; I see that you won't ever read
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
545:
578:
235:
493:
327:
128:
553:
497:
429:
394:
352:
331:
297:
186:
162:
549:
132:
49:
108:
574:
225:
467:"As with all subjects, a film should satisfy the general notability guideline.
180:
526:
And yet you STILL haven't answered the question, where are your sources?
135:
any notability. Contested prod, bringing to AfD for discussion.
593:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
443:
We are a nation apart. What critic is really nationally known?--
224:
Lack of notability, coupled with it just being a joke it seems.
202:
as a harmless in-joke. It certainly doesn't merit an article. —
115:
104:
100:
96:
393:
which creates the exact criteria for film notability.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
603:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
156:list of Film-related deletion discussions
154:: This debate has been included in the
311:How can we Violate our own copyright?--
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
462:so here is the general guidelines:
24:
262:it *might* become notable. See
127:Non-notable movie that has no
1:
620:
583:00:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
57:23:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
562:16:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
536:13:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
521:06:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
506:22:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
453:20:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
438:20:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
419:20:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
403:15:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
382:07:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
361:07:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
340:06:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
321:22:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
306:22:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
281:22:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
257:21:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
241:10:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
217:01:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
195:22:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
171:22:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
145:21:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
596:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
71:Shadow of the Banhammer
63:Shadow of the Banhammer
489:
465:
328:conflict of interests
292:, explicitly fails
384:
372:comment added by
277:
266:for more info. —
213:
173:
159:
611:
598:
367:
278:
276:
272:
238:
233:
228:
214:
212:
208:
183:
160:
150:
129:reliable sources
118:
112:
94:
54:
44:The result was
34:
619:
618:
614:
613:
612:
610:
609:
608:
607:
601:deletion review
594:
275:
268:
264:the policy page
236:
231:
226:
211:
204:
181:
114:
85:
69:
66:
50:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
617:
615:
606:
605:
588:
586:
585:
567:
566:
565:
564:
539:
538:
528:Wildthing61476
513:72.130.160.178
464:
463:
445:72.130.160.178
441:
440:
411:72.130.160.178
406:
405:
374:72.130.160.178
364:
363:
343:
342:
313:72.130.160.178
309:
308:
286:
285:
284:
283:
249:72.130.160.178
244:
243:
219:
197:
174:
137:Wildthing61476
125:
124:
65:
60:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
616:
604:
602:
597:
591:
590:
589:
584:
580:
576:
572:
569:
568:
563:
559:
555:
554:The Dominator
551:
547:
543:
542:
541:
540:
537:
533:
529:
525:
524:
523:
522:
518:
514:
508:
507:
503:
499:
498:The Dominator
495:
488:
484:
481:
478:
474:
471:
468:
461:
457:
456:
455:
454:
450:
446:
439:
435:
431:
430:The Dominator
427:
424:Enough! Read
423:
422:
421:
420:
416:
412:
404:
400:
396:
395:The Dominator
392:
387:
386:
385:
383:
379:
375:
371:
362:
358:
354:
353:The Dominator
349:
348:
347:
341:
337:
333:
332:The Dominator
329:
325:
324:
323:
322:
318:
314:
307:
303:
299:
298:The Dominator
295:
291:
288:
287:
282:
279:
273:
271:
265:
260:
259:
258:
254:
250:
246:
245:
242:
239:
234:
229:
223:
220:
218:
215:
209:
207:
201:
198:
196:
192:
188:
184:
178:
175:
172:
168:
164:
157:
153:
149:
148:
147:
146:
142:
138:
134:
130:
122:
117:
110:
106:
102:
98:
93:
89:
84:
80:
76:
72:
68:
67:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
53:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
595:
592:
587:
570:
548:, also read
509:
490:
485:
482:
479:
475:
472:
469:
466:
442:
407:
365:
344:
310:
289:
269:
221:
205:
199:
176:
151:
126:
51:
45:
43:
31:
28:
368:—Preceding
573:per Erik.
163:Pixelface
460:WP:MOVIE
426:WP:MOVIE
391:WP:MOVIE
370:unsigned
330:here...
294:WP:MOVIE
121:View log
546:WP:CITE
200:Userify
191:contrib
88:protect
83:history
52:JForget
575:Risker
571:Delete
511:gun.--
494:WP:CoI
290:Delete
222:Delete
177:Delete
133:verify
116:delete
92:delete
46:Delete
270:FIRE!
206:FIRE!
119:) – (
109:views
101:watch
97:links
16:<
579:talk
558:talk
550:WP:V
532:talk
517:talk
502:talk
449:talk
434:talk
415:talk
399:talk
378:talk
357:talk
336:talk
317:talk
302:talk
253:talk
227:Jmlk
193:) -
187:talk
182:Erik
167:talk
152:Note
141:talk
105:logs
79:talk
75:edit
158:.
131:to
581:)
560:)
534:)
519:)
504:)
496:.
451:)
436:)
417:)
401:)
380:)
359:)
338:)
319:)
304:)
255:)
189:•
169:)
143:)
107:|
103:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
81:|
77:|
48:--
577:(
556:(
530:(
515:(
500:(
447:(
432:(
413:(
397:(
376:(
355:(
334:(
315:(
300:(
251:(
237:7
232:1
185:(
165:(
161:—
139:(
123:)
113:(
111:)
73:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.