Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2081 (film)


 * 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 - arguments both ways are strong; while it appears to be on the edge of deletion due to notability, the sources presented do seem to indicate there are references available. Hopefully, those sources will improve the article. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

2081 (film)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article about a forthcoming film. No release date, nothing on IMDb. PROD removed by author when he added a link to a trailer on the film's web-site, but I don't think a two-and-a-half minute trailer is evidence that the film has commenced principal photography as required by WP:NFF. I can find no independent reliable source - Google search finds discussion on blogs and film sites, all seeming to use the same words: "The trailer has been creating a lot of buzz on many film blogs. It seems to take some of the concepts of Philip K Dick and P D James. The trailer has some really interesting images... " - sounds like a press release. Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF. JohnCD (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Comment by nominator: It does seem to be demonstrated that the film exists, but (I'm sorry if I seem to be moving the goalposts) there is still the question of notability as defined in WP:MOVIE, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The Moving Picture Institute are not independent - they funded the film and in fact the article says they "produced" it. Everything else I can find on the web is blog-type discussion and speculation, so many of them using the same words starting "The trailer has been creating a lot of buzz on many film blogs... " which I quoted above, that one suspects a common origin. Read the sections of WP:MOVIE headed General principles and Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films: I just don't think this unreleased short film qualifies as notable. However since more information has been added since the nomination, I have notified everyone who has !voted so far, so that they can revisit it if they wish. JohnCD (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  16:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Harrison Bergeron. It appears that it's been filmed, but not yet scheduled for distribution.  Hopefully, it will be shown sometime during the next 73 years.  Great story by Kurt Vonnegut. Mandsford (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Google search reveals very little; best I can find is a mention in this interview, but it's not nearly enough to establish notability. PC78 (talk) 23:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and PC78. Very little coverage, not enough to satisfy WP:MOVIE. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep the Moving Picture Institute has been added as a credible source. This should address the deletion issue. http://www.thempi.org/cgi-local/film.cgi?f=21 JayLv99 (talk) 15:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment (copied from a message on my talk page - JohnCD) - I was an extra in this film. It wrapped months ago.  There are numerous references to it on the web.  IMDB is, very often, NOT used by filmmakers who are not inside the studio system (I should know as I have appeared in sveral films and found them all to have taken FOREVER to appear on IMDB)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.18.28.64 (talk) 00:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as source found by JayLv99 shows cystal and NFF no longer apply.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Moving the goalposts since Crystal and NFF were dismissed? Nahhhhh... you are just showing a well respected concern for the article's notibility or lack. I can't ignore the MPI cites, for they cannot be lumped together with sites at Sony about a Sony film or sites at TriStar about a TriStar film. MPI is a non-profit organization, while the others are companies for profit. A better comparison about MPI as a source might be the articles about the American Cancer Society or American Heart Association that repeatedly source the organizations themselves. I have great deal of respect for such altruism. Based upon the quoted Evidence of Notability guidelines, and because the guidelines rely on the policy at WP:V where a Reliable Source must be considered in relationship to the claim being made, as in "The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context", and "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality sources", and in the context offered, and in that no exception claim is being made, the MPI source passes WP:V and subsequently WP:RS since "policies take precedent over guidelines". Further, and with complete understanding that "notability is not inherited, "Other evidence of notability" does allow an editor to consider the involved parties in a film in considering its notability. I am thus "considering" the genre-changing notability of Kurt Vonnegut, the notable "Harrison Bergeron" short story, and the notable "Harrison Bergeron" film of 1995, in conjunction with the article's cites and sources when making my determination. So with the greatest of respect, I think the article squeeks in with notability (even if minor).  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-profits may not promote their own work to make money, but they'll still want to promote that which they funded and support. If independent sources existed, then it would be okay to reference the MPI stuff, but I'm very wary of building an article around them. Movingboxes (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahhhh... but the independent sources do exist, they are simply "tertiary".  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am hoping the next few days of the AFd will see a continued set of improvements by the author, as it has already been improved in the 36 hours since it was created and the 36 hours minus 8 minutes since it was tagged and the 36 hours minus 1 hour since it was sent to AfD. Why the big hurry to get this out of here?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - definitely needs some work, but it has notable actors and has been shot already. Sourcing is problematic, but not delete-worthy. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 *  Keep  still (not sure if I needed to revote or not). I'm adding more information as I get it, and put a link to the movie's entry on Flixter today. I feel that the movie obviously is "notable" enough in that the blogosphere has exploded with questions about 2081. Isn't this the point of Wikipedia - to be flexible enough to answer questions as soon as they arise? JayLv99 (talk) 14:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you don't get to !vote twice (although the ! in front of !vote is a reminder that it's not a count). I've put a "strike-through" on your second "keep", which is the usual procedure. No offence intended. JohnCD (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm sorry to keep being the devil's advocate, but MichaelQSchmidt is doing a good job on behalf of the angels... The Flixter website adds nothing because it copies exactly, word for word, what's on the film's own web-site. In fact on all the different sites I have found, there are only two sets of words: the ones that go "Based on a short story... " down to " ...an act of defiance that changes everything.", and the ones that go "The trailer has been creating a lot of buzz on many film blogs. It seems to take some of the concepts of Philip K Dick and P D James. The trailer has some really interesting images... " Nobody has anything else to say, because nobody knows anything else. Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject has got to be something more than just repeating the makers' web-site and (probably) press release. From WP:MOVIE: "Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the film."


 * Read WP:MOVIE. "Widely distributed... two full-length reviews... historically notable... major award for excellence.. " They're thinking of something on quite a different level from this. You couldn't achieve that sort of notability before release; and indeed lower down "films that... have not yet been publicly released... should not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." That might apply to a forthcoming Harry Potter or James Bond, but not here.


 * You see "the blogosphere exploding with questions... " I'm afraid I see promoters who haven't got a release arranged planting their press release in as many blogs as possible, hoping to stir up interest. It's not Wikipedia's job to help them. JohnCD (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry John... and thank you for the compliment... but I will adhere to my points as made above. I respect you quoting guideline, and respect the guidelines... but again, "policies take precedent over guidelines"... guidelines are just that... guidelines. In deciding WP:N, per policy, I am allowed to consider all factors. I have done so. With the greatest respect,  Schmidt, ' MICHAEL Q. 22:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Further, there is always the most basic policy of all: WP:IAR, which recognizes that time and events and needs change and so encourages boldness in improving Wikippedia. That aside, Giro voted above and I KNOW he is more knowledgable than am I. He is quite right in that the article needs attention, but also in that it has passed your initial concerns of WP:Crystal and WP:NFF, and furthe has passed WP:NF and WP:V.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Other URL's for external links: New York Times artticle on Thor Halvorssen, Reason.com, TheFreeLibrary.com, URLFan, Atlasnetwork.tv, Finallyequal.com, brain-terminal.com, and I don't read or speak Russian (?). One or more of these might be helpful.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I checked out the links Michael provided and did a little more research on my own as well... I found some neat new stuff on America's Future Foundation and threw the material onto the Wiki, which now has budget, anticipated release schedule and more casting information. The article also should verify that the movie is happening (in a reasonable timeframe), and also gives more information on the director, Chandler Tuttle. Assuming things end well with this, I intend to (hopefully) create / work on Mr. Tuttle's Wiki page in the near future as well. JayLv99 (talk) 14:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have to admire your industry and determination, but I am still not convinced. All these new sources are either pointers back to the old ones or interviews with the director or producer or MPI staff.


 * Yes, Michael, policies trump guidelines, but WP:MOVIE is just there to help interpret the policy WP:N, and when we fall back to that we read "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." and " 'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc." None of the numerous sources you have found are independent because they are all just repeating what the film's director and producer say. Yes, (for instance) reason.com and thefreelibrary.com are independent organisations, but we're not hearing them: they are reporting, in identical words, what Rob Pfaltzgraff of MPI told them. All these sources come back to the producers; nobody has anything independent to say because nobody has seen the film. Yes, that makes it almost impossible for an unreleased film to achieve notability, and that's why unreleased films almost never have articles.


 * However, it's not up to me. I have said my piece, and will shut up and leave it to the unfortunate closing admin who has got to read through all this and decide whose arguments s/he prefers. JohnCD (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)]


 * Yes, and even tougher for an unreleased short. If it were a multi-million dolllar blockbuster, it would have more coverage. However, I will still stand by my comments above... even more I suppose because it is a short. For what it is, it has notability.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please do not delete this article. I do not think it deserves to be deleted. Fangusu (talk) 05:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you please cite a valid reason? Thanks.  Lady   Galaxy  18:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Per nom.  Lady   Galaxy  18:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You asked Fangusu to give a reason and then yourself voted Delete per nom. The Nom's concerns of WP:Crystal and WP:NFF were quickly addressed, and then a new concern of WP:NF was addressed, and specially since this article most definitely passes WP:GNG, what were your own valid reasons?    Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Final (I hope - this must be going to the wire soon) comment from nominator - I do not believe it "most definitely passes WP:GNG", which requires sources independent of the makers and their backers. JohnCD (talk) 19:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.