Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Our Feature Presentation

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 22:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our Feature Presentation

edit
Our Feature Presentation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

No notability asserted. Blue links appear to be unrelated (a predeceased actor of a different nationality and an American football player). Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I spent about 5 minutes, and although I'll admit that a mention in Variety in 2006 would be notable, I'm wondering why there's nothing else afterward. It hasn't been released in 2008, although we still have a little bit left in the year of "Oh, wait!". Even the official website stops at '06 when it comes to news. What happened? I think WikiDan is right that the references don't help much. Mandsford (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I just spent a few hours research, expanding, and sourcing the article. The author presented this to Wiki, and I prefer it to be this. If this article had been presented (as expanded) in late 2006, notability would not be in question. While I agree that there seems to be no recent news, notability is not temporary, and I still think it should be kept. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I can't say I prefer your updates, as they represent a copyright violation (and have been so marked). I find it curious that the synopsis of the film is IDENTICAL at all four movie sites cited (IMDb.com, hollywood.com, tcm.com and screenrush.co.uk). It's almost as if someone went and created entries at all of these sites just to show some notability for the film. Unfortunately, listings on these sites do NOT confer notability as they are open to unverifiable user edits. Since no independent review can be found for the film, it fails notability. The linked news stories (from a local paper) tell of a movie in production, but not of a finished product. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • WHile I agree that the same synopsis is at different sites, the dates from those sites indicate that the sysnopsis has been placed as early as 2006 and as late as 2008... and all duplicate the information at the film's official website. Gee, I can only imagine that the production company distributed that information... as is their duty and responsibility. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per updated version.--DrWho42 (talk) 21:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I hate to be negative here and I respect your efforts on this article and subject's behalf, but on what exactly would a keep argument of notability be based? Let me clarify by saying, assuming you can get this additional information from good source... what will it say? What is the notability? Is every independent comedy notable? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I respect your "negativity" and appreciate your consideration for my eforts. But as I do not have a crystal ball, I cannot answer your questions with any accuracy. With my explaning to the producer what is required, I might hope to be given links to reviews that show it as well received or picked up by major distribution. But again, I do not know and can only hope. Notability might be in the reviews mentioning a member of its cast (crystal) or might be in awards (crystal). Or they may be totally useless (crystal). As for your last question, an independent comedy is notable if it meets the criteria of WP:NF. I suppose I have until the end of this AfD to improve the article and meet concerns... but if they do not follow through with suitable source links before the end of the AfD, I might at least hope that the deletion is "without prejudice" so the article may be recreated when sourcing become available. Fair enough? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep Borderline notability as of yet. Sadly writing about films is rather dreary, IMHO, but the sources do seems to suggest the film and aspects of production have edged over the GNG. -- Banjeboi 00:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in the absence of substantial third party published reviews, or of course awards, there's no reason to assume notability--and there is no reason to assume that an independent film will have such reviews. When such reviews appear in good sources, then an article can be justified. My personal opinion is that local press notices about the local production of a film are irrelevant to notability, just as local interviews with a local author are irrelevant to the notability of a book--they are not truly independent third party, but courtesy publicity for local figures. Perhaps we will need a more general discussion of guidelines. Using Wikipedia for publicity is in my opinion a downwards step for this as for any other the encyclopedia--and I think the references provided show no more than that. DGG (talk) 01:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, and I explained exactly that to production. If reliable sources cannot establish notability, the article is destined to go. Above, If it stays it will continue to be imnproved, and if deleted I would appreciate the concession to recreate and only if 2008 notability can be established that meets WP:NF. No more, no less. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's clear to me that MQS has continued to research this article to find sources, and I understand that more are on the way. There's been quite a bit of progress over the course of a few days, and sourcing an article is what we look for on Wikipedia. Besides my wish not to interrupt while improvements are in progress, what was already there (mentions in Variety, for instance) was good, and it's clear that the production was filmed, even if not yet released. Finally, the director/producer (Loulan) has a measure of notability already by virtue of being one of the four VJ's on the mtvU cable network. Mandsford (talk) 02:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment MQS's "sources" are all film compendia, similar to IMDb.com, that allow user submissions. As such, none of them provide any more verifiability than IMDb itself, which is not generally allowed as a reliable source. The "reviews" referenced in the article are not reviews at all, but rather are feature articles about the PRODUCTION of the film, not about the released product. As far as anyone can tell, this movie started production, but never actually got released or shown anywhere. Also, the article, as it stands today, has no mention of Variety. Perhaps this citation was deleted? Finally, notability of the producer does not automatically confer notability to the project, especially if it can't be verified that the project was ever completed.WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 04:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • With respects, WikiDan61, I would have just as soon used IMDB as a source to verify the cast/crew/production information... as its content, though submitable by anyone, is not published unless the submission contains proofs that can be then vetted by IMDB editorial staff and so verified before they publish. No proofs with a submission = no publication of information. Verifiable and vettable proofs with submissions = publication after confirmation. However, I am not using any of those other "refs" for anything other than verification of the film's existance, as you have already acknowledged. IMDB does not confer notability. I will not claim it does. Thank you for the Variety reminder... but all it does is echo the existance already established by AMG and IMDB... which are both simply glorified but verified lists of credits information. If the article is deleted because you find the several write-ups about the film in reliable (though yes, local) souces to not be enough to meet WP:GNG, all I ask is the caveat to be able to bring it back when additional and more recent sources confirm that the film had been released. Fair enough? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly! I'm hoping the article survives, but deletions based on notability don't mean a permanent ban, because things change. Why, I remember back in 1959, I wrote a Wikipedia article about Lee Harvey Oswald and it got deleted ("non-notable defector to the Soviet Union" was the reason). Then, 45 years ago today as a matter of fact, I re-created the article, and it's been there ever since. Mandsford (talk) 19:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All MQS has done is, possibly, proved that the film exists. The press writeups about the film all occurred BEFORE the film's release. There is no verifiable press of the film AFTER its release. What this means is that the EVENT of shooting the film may have had LOCAL notability (not sufficient for Wikipedia inclusion), but it does nothing to bolster the notability of the film itself. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:15, 23 November 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Our_Feature_Presentation&oldid=1145569191"