Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asylum Seekers (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   keep. Cirt (talk) 21:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Asylum Seekers (film)

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

Non-notable indie film that lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. A couple of gnews hits, but almost all are simply mentions of the title in a list of films being shown at the Vegas film festival, which the film dodn't win any awards at. Article cites 3 sources (all the same magazine). The first is totally about the director and doesn't mention the film at all. The third is much of the first article reprinted and just some updated material added to. The second is an article about the type of camera used to film this movie (and another movie) and really has little to do with the movie itself. Minor attempt at notability by saying it is the first indie film using that type of camera, but it wasn't the first film, just the first indie one. In general, film fails WP:FILMNOT. Not suitable for redirect since there is no article about the director. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The criteria for WP:FILMNOT are not yet met but, should the film be widely released at a later date, then it will satisfy criterion 1 of the guideline which requires it to be (i) widely distributed and (ii) to have received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. The second part of the criterion requirement is met by virtue of reviews by eFilmCritic and Las Vegas Weekly. Currently, though, the film does not satisfy the first portion of that criterion due to not having been widely distributed but this article indicates that Shoreline Entertainment has obtained global distribution rights to the film so this should be treated as an indication that the film might be widely released at some point. Even barring that scenario, the film still passes the general notability guidelines and WP:N always trumps WP:FILMNOT or, for that matter, it trumps any other specialized versions of the general guideline. The film is, then, notable by virtue of significant coverage in the following sources: indieWIRE, Las Vegas Sun as well as Filmmaker Magazine. As the nominating editor mentioned, the main topic of last link is cinematography but the film is mentioned in a non-trivial manner and Filmmaker is definitely a reliable source. Per WP:N, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So what you are saying is that it might meet WP:FILMNOT in the future? You men like WP:CRYSTAL? The ScreenDaily ref is a 3 paragraph article telling us someone got the rights to distribute it. Not much about the Not sure that can be called significant. Yes, there is a review in Las Vegas Weekly. As I pointed out in the nom, there was brief coverage in Vegas papers during the film festival, where a number of films are covered. Again, a 4 paragraph review, the longest which is telling us who the characters are. The Sun article? Actually more about a publicity stunt. efilmcritic? A site that specializes in finding films at festivals and questionably reliable. And the Filmmaker ref was addressed in the nom.....the article is about the camera, not so much the film. Sorry, I'm stil not seeing the significant coverage aside from some mentions in the Vegas papers during the local festival, which I mentioned in the nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My point is that WP:N is met by virtue of all of the above links which mention the film in a non-trivial manner. The Filmmaker article is about the use of the camera, yes, but it specifically mentions and discusses the film in a non-trivial manner. Since WP:N applies to all topics that could possibly be covered by Wikipedia, it does not elaborate on what "trivial" means but WP:NOTFILM gives this explanation of "trivial coverage": newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews," plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as "Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide," "Time Out Film Guide," or the Internet Movie Database". As I pointed out earlier, the film itself does not need to be the main topic of the Filmmaker article, as specifically spelled out by WP:N; it only need be mentioned in a non-trivial manner and, per the explanation of "trivial" by WP:FILMNOT, the article definitely speaks of the film in a non-trivial manner. As far as other articles are concerned, this is an interview with the director of the film that specifically and in detail discusses the film; this is an article from a reliable source that discusses the film's premiere as well as the publicity stunt at it's showing; eFilmCritic and Las Vegas Weekly are full-length reviews by virtue of offering critical commentary rather than being a mere description of the film's plot. They are all reliable publications conforming to WP:RS so, combined, they should all reasonably satisfy WP:N.
 * WP:FILMNOT is not met, I concede that and I'm not trying to argue whether or not it has been satisfied. What I was trying to say by discussing the points of satisfaction of criterion 1 is that, same as with any other policy or guideline, a certain amount of common sense should be used in order to improve Wikipedia, basically employing the spirit of WP:IAR to a reasonable degree. What I mean by that is that if this was an article whose subject has not had any coverage to prove itself notable (and in that sense is unlikely to be searched on Wikipedia by a reader) and is unlikely to ever become notable, then its inclusion in Wikipedia is, in all probability, unwarranted. But if the subject already passes WP:N and we have an indication from a reliable source that it will pass WP:FILMNOT (by being widely released), then the subject should warrant its own article. The indication here is that a notable subject will possibly satisfy even stricter notability criteria in the future in addition to the general notability criteria which it already satisfies. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, those links don't look like significant coverage to me. I saw most of them when I looked at coverage before I nominated the article. We'll see what others think. 03:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. None of the sources are particularly about the film. The most in depth one is about the publicity of the film, because a couple got married going into it, or something like that...The entire plot section is completely unsourced, and reads like a promotional. There are no reviews of the film. In short, there is nothing to write an article with, and it doesn't meet the GNG. Quantpole (talk) 19:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The particular plot in place at the moment seems to have been plagiarized but that will soon be fixed. Just a note that per WP:FILMPLOT, the plot does not need a source since the film itself is a primary source. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Sufficiently notable to be worth including based on reliable coverage. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —PC78 (talk) 16:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  20:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Comment: As a reference to editors new to this discussion, this was the version that was nominated for deletion. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 02:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep with thanks to User:Big Bird for the tremendous amount of work he put into the article since it was first nominated to address original concerns. The article is now enclyclopedic, well-sourced, and notability shown. It improves the project to have this article remain and further grow. Good job Big Bird! MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per User:MichaelQSchmidt. ninety:one  20:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think MichaelQ said everything needed Hutch1970 (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: I removed this article from T:DYK since it's actively being considered for deletion. Daniel Case (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and a nod to Big Bird for above-and-beyond work cleaning this one up. – iride  scent  21:40, 14 September 2009 (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.