Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Life in the Death of Joe Meek


 * 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. &mdash; Scientizzle 15:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

A Life in the Death of Joe Meek

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

Film with no evidence of notability (WP:NOTFILM) provided or found. PROD removed by original editor, adding evidence of the subject of the film's notability. Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep There is some media coverage of the film  AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Those sources don't do much. The first is not a reliable source, just a webzine talking about the film being made and offering a trailer. The second is a "capsule reviews", specified as trivial coverage under WP:NOTFILM. The last one is about Meek and has one sentance mentioning the film at the tail end, clearly not substantial coverage. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. archanamiya  ·  talk  20:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per lack of notability. Luk  suh  03:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. In addition to the sources mentioned above it was briefly reviewed here, after the premier in Oregon, and briefly mentioned here in the Guardian (somewhat tangentially, before coming out). The BBC blog piece cited by AlbinoFerret called it "one of the highlights of this year’s Glasgow Film Festival" (although, again, before it actually came out). It's been screened at three film festivals and features interviews with at least 15 people notable enough to have Wikipedia articles. The subject of the film is himself a quite notable figure. I take the view, which I have just been reminded of, that the guidelines for notability of films- and they are guidelines - at WP:MOVIE are too restrictive. A few brief write-ups in the mainstream press, screenings at several film festivals (within the first two months of release), and a notable subject with notable folks in the film equals a keep for me. My Wikipedia philosophy says we should preserve articles on small cultural fragments like this one, not cast them aside because documentaries can't get distribution deals. We have enough here from film festival schedules and brief mentions in secondary sources to maintain a sourced article about what is apparently a fairly well done documentary about an important figure in the history of British music.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. This a serious two-hours-long documentary film with many *original interviews*, not just a collection of material. It took years to produce it, and is targeted at fans, who know the topic, not a superficial insight.
 * Comment: The notability of the topic of the film is not the issue. There are thousands of non-notable documentaries, often with footage of notable people included, about notable subjects. Blurb reviews aren't going to do it: again, far too broad a net. If we go against guidelines under WP:NOTFILM (a.k.a. WP:MOVIE), at best, brings it back to WP:Notable. These are "just guidelines" as well. Eventually, the question has to be why are you setting aside guidelines -- "a generally accepted standard that editors should follow" -- for this particular film? - Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said I think those guidelines are too restrictive (I've started a conversation, or at least tried to, on the film guideline talk page about this very issue) and this film is an example of a category of films that perhaps technically fall outside the notability guidelines but should not (in my view). It's not about this particular film, it's about this film and others films like it. AfD's are not the place to change policies or guidelines, but they certainly can be a place where we question existing guidelines (which of course can always be treated with the occasional exception) or work out the limits of what is or is not notable. I don't know how many (you suggest thousands) documentaries we are talking about that screen in multiple film festivals, are reviewed in reliable sources (even if only in blurb form), include interviews with over a dozen notable people, and are about a topic/person of some historical importance, but I don't at all think that casts too wide a net. When you add all of that together I think you have enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. We have enough reliable sources to say when and where the movie screened, to provide some brief comments on it from reviewers, along with giving the basic information on what the film is about, who appears in it, who made it, etc. I think we should do that. Believe me, it's not my style to argue against existing guidelines and this may be the first time I've done this in an AfD. I just think we do readers a disservice when we don't have small articles about serious documentary films about notable subjects when said films have received some attention at the time of their release. My argument is based on the relatively inclusionist spirit of Wikipedia on matters cultural rather than the letter of WP:NOTFILM, which I believe is quite biased against serious films that don't necessarily get distributed (which means we in large part base our notability guidelines on the film industry's standards for what should or should not be distributed - i.e. standards based almost solely on profit). I would also add that it's unfortunate that this film is receiving it's English premier in Sheffield in just a few days, after this AfD will close. The reaction (or lack thereof) to that screening would probably speak to our notability concerns.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge with Joe Meek. Proposed target already has a mention of the film and has room for a more complete treatment. Should a merge occur and the film gets more notability per the scenario mentioned by Bigtimepeace, a more fleshed-out article emphasizing increased notability can be (re)generated in the place of the redirect. B.Wind (talk) 03:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * close as keep since this article on a documentary is for sure notable, but if the consensus isn't reached then you may even consider to merge it with Joe Meek , but merging or deleting wont be nice . though this articvle deals with the same personJoe Meek which has an existing article , merging this article to it would be unwise .--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep as it appears to have garnered little but enough media coverage. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  19:08, 13 April 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.