- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 00:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- L'Absent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Contested prod. Article is about a non-notable indie movie. No reliable sources, none found. Article implicitly claims that it showed at the Toronto Film Festival, I am unable to verify that info. TNXMan 20:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see that this article has been much improved from its initial state and should be kept. I strike my nomination. One serving of "my words" please, waiter. :P TNXMan 23:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info can now be verified. Please re-check Category Stub: 1997 Toronto International Film Festival/ Perspective Canada --Iswearius (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize, I should have been more specific. I am unable to verify the info in independent, third-party sources. Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for itself. TNXMan 21:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info further verified. Please check http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/1997-Toronto-International-Film-Festival Perspective Canada.--Iswearius (talk) 21:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Info further verified. Please also check http://books.google.com/books?id=P15tyiOSRz0C&pg=PA45&dq=L%27absent+baril --Iswearius (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Info further verified. Please also check http://www.filmreferencelibrary.ca/index.asp?navid=94&layid=29&csid2=110&fid1=221#alpha --Iswearius (talk) 22:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Info further verified. Please also check http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/158614/L-Absent/overview --Iswearius (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nationmaster copies text from Wikipedia. We can't use ourselves as a reference. - Mgm|(talk) 08:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info further verified. Please view the following webpage. This is the Toronto International Film Festival Group's official Film reference library http://www.filmreferencelibrary.ca/index.asp?navid=94&layid=29&csid2=110&fid1=221#alpha . Contact info is also available for authentification.--Iswearius (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All this source confirms is that a copy is held by the film reference library, which doesn't really help. The NYT review does help, but is brief and appears to be copied from "All Movie Guide", which I'm not really sure is reliable. Are there more reviews of the film published elsewhere? JulesH (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Looking at the above sources, we have a review in what is apparently an academic textbook, which suggests artistic importance of some kind. Plus there's the brief NYT review, which is marginal but also helps establish notability. I'd say this is enough. JulesH (talk) 19:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I see brief mentions in websites and the like, but I don't see any in-depth coverage. At most, I am able to determine that the film existed and was shown with very many other films at the Toronto Film Festival. I would ask the original poster the same question you did - Are there any reviews of the film? TNXMan 19:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Info further verified. Rewiew. Please check http://www.allbusiness.com/media-telecommunications/movies-sound-recording/9750243-1.html--Iswearius (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 01:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Info further verified. Listing in the Quebec film repertory. Please view http://collections.cinematheque.qc.ca/filmo_repertoire.asp?id=51433--Iswearius (talk) 04:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Sources provided are not compelling, barely more than passing mention. Notability hasn't been established. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Info further verified. Film reviewed in 1997 issue of notable film periodical. Please view http://www.revue24images.com/ancien/sommaire87.html and http://runners.ritsumei.ac.jp/cgi-bin/swets/hold-query-e?mode=1&key=&idxno=11600117--Iswearius (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and send to WP:Cleanup. There seems to be a good faith effort to bring this article into line with guidelines. WP:V has been meet and WP:NF is starting to be tickled. Letting it be improved improves wiki. If this fails, AfD is still an option. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Article has been improved and is being expanded along proper guidelines. Thanks to all for pointing out my shortcomings. Please keep on doing so.--Iswearius (talk) 09:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's archived in a national archive per WP:NF criterion 4 which is backed up by sources, so it is a notable film even if mention in sources tends to be trivial (the coverage only needs to be non-trivial if the coverage itself is used to establish notability per WP:GNG). - Mgm|(talk) 23:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment and only came back here to say so after I had a hand myself at cleanup per film mos. Now an article worthy of wiki! Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.