465:. Niche films, good ones or bad ones, will be screened at niche festivals. Guideline does not demand otherwise. The 17-year-old film has met guideline requirement for notability with its sourced assertion of screening more than five years after its release. You may not think that gives it notability, but that opinion runs contrary to what guideline explicitly states. You are welcome to change the guideline if you disagree, but the film meets that specific criteria for inclusion. And thank you for noting my diligent work in movie articles, as diligence is a good thing and due diligence per
707:- Of the four pay-per-view sources, one was definitely trivial, one probably was, and two were the same article. However, those two weren't trivial, and when combined with the festival showing, coverage in Black Belt magazine, and the TV Guide review, it seems that we have enough to establish notability to Knowledge's standards, and to write a bit more than the usual plot + reception. So I'm happy enough to keep the article. -
322:, one can either pay-per-view (no) or visit the microfische archives at a decent public library (yes), so for me it seemed to tickle the GNG. Then when I was able to add two nice in-depth reviews of the film, it pushed it over the top for me. However, the gold pot at the end of the rainbow was that the film was screened at the
441:
If you have not read the sources, then with respects, any opinion about what they "might" contain is meaningless. And even were they to not be exclusive, as long as they are more-than-trivial, they are emminently satisfactory per guideline. And guideline NEVER says a review must be positive and full
537:
I use the same guidelines as do you. That someone dusted this stinker off and actually screened it at a festival 14 years after initial release allows it as historical per guideline, crap though it may be. Interesting note that at that screening, Mimi's work in and as actress/director/action hero of
379:
While I'm going to see if I can dig up some better references, it at the moment I think that strong keep might be a tad much - of the refs only one, the TV Guide entry, actually speaks to notability. The other indepth review is of questionable reliability, and the rest of the sources are of no real
645:
It is a listings magazine! This suggests that also DIY Network films are notable - if they are shown in a notable film festival, such as the Action On Film
International Festival, which despite claims to be "one of these most progressive film festivals on the scene today.", I'm certainly not 100%
496:
by asserting that qualifies as a historically significant film per criterion 2 of the guideline. I doubt very much that you believe that it is, in any sense, historically significant, but I may be wrong about that. Your work to improve movie-related articles is commendable - do you really want to
448:
review of a crappy film is absolutely wonderful. I would expect and hope for nothing less. And to argue that a crappy film cannot meet historical inclusion criteria of guideline sounds like you are arguing that guideline is incorrect. It specifically states, with no equivocation
678:
is not a "screening in someone's garden" as you stated. If you feel the festival is not worth being considered a festival by
Knowledge, despite its own coverage in reliable sources, that is up to individual editors to determine. Thank you.
423:. I appreciate the diligent work you do on movie articles, but, with all due respect, arguing that this is a historically notable film based on a screening at a niche festival and a scathing review in TV Guide seems somewhat misplaced.
186:
Thanks for the "Keep". I like to dig a bit deeper into these things when time allows. Sometimes I hit gold. Sometimes I come up empty. And save that line... it's terrific and Wiki affords plenty of opportunities to share it.
396:
Thanks, I was kinda surprised myself that it had been screened at a festival 14 years after its initial release. Sometimes even a crap film will make its way back. Of course, the AOF film festival did not exist in 91/92.
561:
You are correct that it meets the test. I don't believe the intention of including the "historically significant" criterion was to allow articles on movies like this one. (That's not a statement on whether "bad" movies
380:
note - the NY Times is, in fact, just a repeat of the other (and acknowledges it). Still, you're right that the pay-per-views look ok, as is the festival, so I'll chase the other reviews up and see where we sit. -
566:
be historically significant, because I'm sure they can, just not in this case.) I think you do yourself a disservice by using a literal reading of a guideline to garner a keep here, but that is your choice.
418:
The sources that Cazort found, admittedly without having read the full text, do not appear to be primarily about the movie. They might be useful if someone decides to recreate a non-copyvio article about
595:
Being mentioned once in a film magazine and being shown on a projector in someone's garden is only permissable if
Knowledge has entriels about all the non-notable peers of Dickens and Hardy the duo
670:
of the film was in-depth and not a trival list mention. That they cut several networks from their grid listings for "space concerns" in
January 2009 has nothing to do with an in-depth review from
538:
her film actually received recognition, so others have a higher opinion of it than do I. I might think the film is a turkey, but guideline is elegantly guideline, and requires no "twisting".
671:
265:
122:
315:
641:
With yet greater respects, "In
January 2009, the magazine cut several networks from the grid listings, including DIY Network and MTV, citing "space concerns". -
267:. This strikes me as a borderline case to me, in terms of notability, and I don't really have a recommendation, but I thought I'd throw the sources out there.
286:
326:
14 years after its initial release and the star actually received some recognition for her work in her film, the screening of which specifically meets
206:
Good job- the some of the wiki's best articles wouldn't still be here today if someone hadn't dug deeper into the case. And yes, I'll save the line.
89:
84:
461:, nor that a commercial re-release be nationwide. Further, and even though no one has yet written its article, the film festival in question has
93:
646:
certain the festival itself is notable enough to be on
Knowledge, let alone a terrible wrestling movie that happened to be shown there once.
666:
is accepted as a reliable source for television-related news, celebrity interviews, and film reviews... not for their programming listings.
76:
245:
212:
171:
17:
572:
523:
506:
428:
235:
138:
729:
264:
I find four sources, all non-public access and with what looks like fairly minimal coverage, but in reputable sources:
250:
207:
176:
770:
750:
733:
716:
693:
655:
632:
604:
576:
552:
527:
483:
432:
411:
389:
367:
301:
276:
239:
217:
201:
181:
142:
58:
805:
688:
627:
547:
478:
406:
362:
196:
154:
55:
36:
804:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
568:
519:
502:
424:
231:
150:
134:
80:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
746:
725:
765:
651:
600:
760:
647:
596:
681:
620:
540:
471:
399:
355:
189:
130:
346:
72:
64:
350:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
466:
338:
311:
272:
712:
385:
667:
297:
342:
158:
52:
516:
512:
498:
493:
420:
327:
110:
742:
319:
268:
48:. No consensus AfDs appear to have pushed themselves to the limit on May 12th.
708:
381:
293:
662:
615:
444:
49:
492:
My point was simply that you appear to be arguing that this movie meets
323:
458:
244:
Ah, gotcha. Sorry about the confusion, I should have looked into it.
787:
675:
618:
is not "some film magazine". Interesting comment though. Thank you.
611:
462:
334:
or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release
798:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
230:. Sorry if that wasn't clear from the nomination. I'll fix it.
129:
Completely unremarkable movie. Contested prod. Does not meet
642:
758:- an excellent job identifying evidence of notability.
117:
106:
102:
98:
457:". Guideline does not demand that the festival be
228:fails to meet Knowledge's criteria for notability
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
808:). No further edits should be made to this page.
157:this article, and may it perish in the fires of
324:2006 Action On Film International Film Festival
469:allowed the discovery of these informations.
463:itself been amply covered in reliable sources
451:The film was given a commercial re-release, '
8:
660:For their expertise and editorial oversite,
332:The film was given a commercial re-release,
614:is not a screening in someone's garden and
455:, at least five years after initial release
337:. All learned through practice of diligent
166:Wow, didn't catch that. Good job Schmidt! (
281:
287:list of Film-related deletion discussions
168:damn, and it was such a good line, too...
285:: This debate has been included in the
780:
7:
724:. Nice rescue from MichaelQSchmidt.
674:. And again and with respects, the
497:keep this article by twisting the
24:
788:http://www.aoffest.com/about.html
501:guidelines so far out of shape?
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
442:of praise, so a "scathing"
825:
509:) 22:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
453:or screened in a festival'
801:Please do not modify it.
771:13:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
751:13:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
734:23:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
717:10:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
694:21:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
656:22:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
633:08:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
605:23:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
577:12:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
553:08:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
528:12:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
484:16:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
433:13:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
412:16:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
390:13:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
368:10:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
302:21:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
277:15:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
240:15:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
218:13:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
202:17:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
182:15:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
143:15:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
59:15:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
676:Action On Film Festival
612:Action On Film Festival
341:, and consideration of
314:, I also found those
741:, non-notable film.
511:I fixed the typo of
610:With respects, the
569:Delicious carbuncle
520:Delicious carbuncle
503:Delicious carbuncle
425:Delicious carbuncle
232:Delicious carbuncle
226:Unremarkable as in
135:Delicious carbuncle
73:Pushed to the Limit
65:Pushed to the Limit
726:Fences and windows
162:
44:The result was
776:-- References --
530:
304:
290:
169:
148:
816:
803:
790:
785:
684:
623:
543:
510:
474:
402:
358:
291:
253:
248:
215:
210:
192:
179:
174:
167:
120:
114:
96:
34:
824:
823:
819:
818:
817:
815:
814:
813:
812:
806:deletion review
799:
794:
793:
786:
782:
682:
621:
541:
472:
400:
356:
251:
246:
213:
208:
190:
177:
172:
116:
87:
71:
68:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
822:
820:
811:
810:
792:
791:
779:
778:
774:
773:
766:Quicumque vult
753:
736:
719:
701:
700:
699:
698:
697:
696:
636:
635:
590:
589:
588:
587:
586:
585:
584:
583:
582:
581:
580:
579:
556:
555:
532:
531:
487:
486:
436:
435:
415:
414:
393:
392:
371:
370:
316:4 news sources
305:
279:
259:
258:
257:
256:
255:
223:
222:
221:
220:
153:come down and
149:"Yea, may the
127:
126:
67:
62:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
821:
809:
807:
802:
796:
795:
789:
784:
781:
777:
772:
769:
768:
767:
762:
757:
754:
752:
748:
744:
740:
737:
735:
731:
727:
723:
720:
718:
714:
710:
706:
703:
702:
695:
692:
691:
690:
686:
685:
677:
673:
669:
665:
664:
659:
658:
657:
653:
649:
644:
640:
639:
638:
637:
634:
631:
630:
629:
625:
624:
617:
613:
609:
608:
607:
606:
602:
598:
594:
578:
574:
570:
565:
560:
559:
558:
557:
554:
551:
550:
549:
545:
544:
536:
535:
534:
533:
529:
525:
521:
518:
514:
508:
504:
500:
495:
491:
490:
489:
488:
485:
482:
481:
480:
476:
475:
468:
464:
460:
456:
454:
447:
446:
440:
439:
438:
437:
434:
430:
426:
422:
417:
416:
413:
410:
409:
408:
404:
403:
395:
394:
391:
387:
383:
378:
375:
374:
373:
372:
369:
366:
365:
364:
360:
359:
352:
348:
344:
340:
336:
335:
329:
325:
321:
317:
313:
309:
306:
303:
299:
295:
288:
284:
280:
278:
274:
270:
266:
263:
260:
254:
252:insignificant
249:
243:
242:
241:
237:
233:
229:
225:
224:
219:
216:
214:insignificant
211:
205:
204:
203:
200:
199:
198:
194:
193:
185:
184:
183:
180:
178:insignificant
175:
165:
160:
156:
152:
147:
146:
145:
144:
140:
136:
132:
131:WP:NOTABILITY
124:
119:
112:
108:
104:
100:
95:
91:
86:
82:
78:
74:
70:
69:
66:
63:
61:
60:
57:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
800:
797:
783:
775:
764:
759:
755:
738:
721:
704:
689:
687:
680:
672:January 2008
668:Their review
661:
648:The Iron Rod
628:
626:
619:
597:The Iron Rod
592:
591:
563:
548:
546:
539:
479:
477:
470:
452:
450:
443:
421:Mimi Lesseos
407:
405:
398:
376:
363:
361:
354:
347:WP:POTENTIAL
333:
331:
307:
282:
261:
227:
197:
195:
188:
163:
128:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
351:WP:PRESERVE
320:User:Cazort
310:Per proper
308:STRONG Keep
761:Athanasius
330:in that "
683:Schmidt,
663:TV Guide
622:Schmidt,
616:TV Guide
542:Schmidt,
473:Schmidt,
467:WP:AFTER
445:TV Guide
401:Schmidt,
357:Schmidt,
339:WP:AFTER
312:WP:AFTER
247:a little
209:a little
191:Schmidt,
173:a little
123:View log
56:three...
377:Comment
318:as did
262:Comment
90:protect
85:history
743:Stifle
739:Delete
593:Delete
459:Cannes
343:WP:ATD
269:Cazort
151:angels
118:delete
94:delete
709:Bilby
517:WP:NF
513:WP:MF
499:WP:NF
494:WP:NF
382:Bilby
328:WP:NF
155:smite
121:) – (
111:views
103:watch
99:links
16:<
756:Keep
747:talk
730:talk
722:Keep
713:talk
705:Keep
652:talk
601:talk
573:talk
524:talk
515:for
507:talk
429:talk
386:talk
349:and
298:talk
294:PC78
283:Note
273:talk
236:talk
164:Keep
159:hell
139:talk
107:logs
81:talk
77:edit
564:can
53:two
50:One
763:•
749:)
732:)
715:)
654:)
603:)
575:)
526:)
431:)
388:)
353:.
345:,
300:)
289:.
275:)
238:)
170:)
161:."
141:)
133:.
109:|
105:|
101:|
97:|
92:|
88:|
83:|
79:|
745:(
728:(
711:(
650:(
643:1
599:(
571:(
522:(
505:(
449:"
427:(
384:(
296:(
292:—
271:(
234:(
137:(
125:)
115:(
113:)
75:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.