Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Believers (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.

Believers (film)
The result was   Kept - Nomination withdrawn (Non-Admin closure). -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 18:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

1) A cursory internet search only returns IMDB and other unaccaptable 2ndary sources. The Rottten Tomatoes page lists five reviews, five review of no note or national standing or significance.

2) The IMDB reference and others do not meet notability guidelines per WP:NOTFILM

3) There is no full-length featured newspaper articles from large circulation newspapers or full-length magazine reviews and criticism reviewing the film.

4) The film appears not to be widely distributed in the US and it has not received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. It is straight to DVD release so there is no box office of note or opening weekend news.

5) The film is not historically notable.

6) The film was is not considered notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals.

7) The film has not bee featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.

8) The film has not received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.

9) The film has not been selected for preservation in a national archive.

10) As far as a internet search is concerned, the film is not "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.

11) The film does not represent a unique accomplishment in cinema, a milestone in the development of film art, or contributes significantly to the development of United States cinema.

12) The film does not have any actors of note.

I beleive this film does not meet notability requirements of WP:NOTFILM and should be nominated for deletion. Resubmitted due to contested prod tag. Barton Foley (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "NOM WITHDRAWN" I would like to withdraw my nomination for deletion of this film. Yeomans work has been done to address notability and my AfD may have been in haste before allowing sufficient time for the issue of notability to be addressed. To those who have improved or otherwise added to the entry, I am happy to have been shown to be incorrect and to withdraw my nomination. Barton Foley (talk) 17:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete No reliable sources, no notable actors, fails notability for films. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Nice Heymann work here. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete It may, at some time in the future, become a "cult classic" but it's not now. padillaH (review me)(help me) 19:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. Equendil Talk 20:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   -- Undead Warrior (talk) 20:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Emphatic KEEP.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Update, as being poorly written, poorly sourced, or poorly searched, is no cause for an article's deletion, I have tagged the article for rescue and cleanup as recommended by guideline, and have begun working on it myself. Apparently it does have a notable cast... even if the nom has never heard of them. As there are plenty of sources available, I expect this to be well cited and properly encyclopedic within a few hours.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have never seen an AfD synopsis so carefuly set up... but cursory is the operative word. The nom stating "five reviews of no note or national standing or significance" is opinion. A more thorough search found johnnumessner.net, brightcove.tv, minnesota.publicradio.org, slashfilm.com, moviesunlimited.com, saturdayfrightspecial.com, openguys.org, classic-horror.com, bloody-disgusting.com, dreadcentral.com, moviesandgamesonline.co.uk, tf.org, lovefilm.com, movieweb.com, dvd.ign.com, and dozens upon dozens more. This film is getting tremendous coverage for a direct-to-dvd film. Since the level of "coverage" is directly dependent on the notability of the film itself, and ignoring the "tertiary" ref to IMDB, WP:NF and WP:N per WP:GNG, WP:RS and WP:V have more than been established. All other "arguments" claiming non-notability are taken from various parts of WP:N, WP:NF and WP:GNG in sections that indicate that IF these attributes exist, then sources proving notability might likley exist... as an encouragemnet for an editor to be diligent in proving notability. It does not say they must exist in order for notability to be proven, only that their existance would be indicative of sources existing. Believers (film) is not Star Wars, so a full-length newspaper review is unlikely... specially in this age of everything being online. Stating that the "The film appears not to be widely distributed in the US and it has not received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics" is incorrect, as any film being offered for sale through the internet has a worldwide distribution. With it being "straight-to-dvd", bringing up a lack of box office or opening weekend news is a non-argument. Calling the film "not historically notable" because it has been out for less than a year, is not about history, nor has had time to become history, is a non-argument. The dozens upon dozens of sources I discovered with a non-cursory search, show that the film is indeed considered notable by film critics and movie professionals who have the experience in their field so as to be able to make that judgement. That an 11-month-old film has not itself been featured in a documentary or retrospective is a non-argument. That an 11-month-old film has not received an award of some sort is a non-argument. That the film has not been selected for preservation in a national archive is both an unknown and a non-argument. That the 11-month-old film is not part of a college sylabus is a non-argument. That an 11-month-old film is not "YET" known to be "unique" or a "milestone" or "significant" to cinema, in the U.S. or elsewhere, is a non-argument, as it is too soon to be able to make that statement. That the film does not have "actors of note" is a non-argument, as a film's notability is not dependent upon the actor's notability and 12 of the film's actors are notable enough to have articles on Wikipedia. Quoting guidelines in a AfD is fine. Understanding the guidelnes is better.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment So, lemme get this straight. If I tag for notability after mt good faith search and do not list my reasons, I get criticism. If I tag for notability after my good faith search and use the posted guidelines on the notability of films as a check list and check "yes" or "no" through the whole list to use to explain my reasoning, I get criticism. That makes sense. Barton Foley (talk) 03:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Response: My own good faith search found much, much more than yours. So does that mean I did it better or that you did it worse? No. It just means we did it differently. Your "list" speaks of attributes... but removed from their proper context in the guidelines. With the greatest of respect, when these "atributes indicative that reliable sources are likley to be found" are removed from context and themselves offered as being mandatory to determine notability, editors may reach an incorrect conclusion. These attributes are offered, after a proviso, to encourage editors to be diligent in their searches and to simply say that if these attributes exist, then sources can likely be found. Editors who see that long list might naturally assume good faith in its every numbered statement, and then assume good faith that all your claims had merit in relationship to the article, and then perhaps give a keep or delete based soley upon their good faith assumption of your list. If you had sent this to AfD with a simply "I do not feel the article has properly addressed notability". We would have had a nearly identicle result of it being improved and absolutely none of the drama. Which way is better? Which worse?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per Schmidt and block this guy from doing AfDs or PRODs until the AN/I thread about his disruptive attempts to delete notable films is done. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 00:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Schmidt and Collectonian. Jclemens (talk) 01:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Appears notable, based on Schmidt's diffs/refs provided.  Don't agree at all with Collectonian's "block this guy" comment though.  Not necessary, however frustrated/frustrating you feel a nom is.   Keeper    76  01:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents - he's being pointy and disruptive. Though doubt he will get blocked, he is still refusing to acknowledge he's doing wrong, not really checking anything, and being disruptive.-- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm willing to WP:AGF with the nom wishing to have the article improved. But I feel Wiki would be better served by the article simply being tagged for improvement, rather than being nominated for deletion within hours of an editor trying to improve it in answer to the nom's original prod: The nom first tagged it on September 11. An editor began sourcing it on September 12. Six  hours later, the nom prodded it for deletion. What was the hurry?? Didn't he want it improved??   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Nominator's arguments are precisely on-target, and keep arguments are a combination of wishful thinking, personal attacks, and weak references. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 05:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I think the films hould be included. since when did content on IMDB or Rotten Tomatoes dictate content on Wikipedia?  Nor3aga (talk) 08:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 15 valid sources are "weak references"? Can you please point out more clearly why you think any and all of those fail WP:RS or are somehow "weak" and not valid for establishing notability? -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 05:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Forget the 15. It's more, much more. I just added 10 more very nice, in-depth reviews, as well as sourced and cited the filmmaker himself being an award wiiner. What do the deletists want? blood? Oh, right... this IS a horror film. Something is very, very wrong when a notable film is being rushed off of Wiki. I hope a closing Admin takes careful note.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per Schmidt and Collectonian; notability has clearly been established. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 09:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. Distributed by Warner Brothers and appears to have some media attention.  --Kraftlos (talk) 09:19, 13 September 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.