Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boy (2009 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) 06:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Boy (2009 film)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No evidence of notability User234 (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Per #2 of the film notability guide - The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival. Screened at at least 7 festivals, many of them having WP articles too.  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * UPDATE - I've now sourced most of them too. Google is your friend.  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You didn't add part of the criteria: "at least five years after initial release.". Joe Chill (talk) 22:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The full text is The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release. - I read that as the commerical re-release after 5 years OR screened in a festival. Find me one film that was screened at a festival and then screened again at another festival 5 years later.  Lugnuts  (talk) 08:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't twist that sentence around; its very clear: A) film is given a commercial re-release, OR B) screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release. User234 (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You've read it wrong, otherwise no-one could create an article for a 2009 film until 2014.  Lugnuts  (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That is if you base notability only on No. 2. What if notability is established outright by No. 1 or No. 3? You can write an article for a 2009 article right here, right now if that's the case. Problem is, you focus only on No. 2, trying to justify the existence of this Boy article on that sole line (and twisting it at that) for your benefit. User234 (talk) 14:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hardly twisting it. The policy asks for one of the points, not x AND y. Your original comment of "no evidence of notability" just simply isn't true, as I've already proven. There's also the blurb on the film notability page that reads "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This is covered in the number of refs I've added around screening and censorship. Lugnuts  (talk) 17:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * KEEP It is so strange we become so touchy about a film whose subject matter doesn't suit our agenda or values, so we stick deletion notes to them. If the film "Boy" has been screened at Outfest Los Angles Gay and Lesbian Film Festival, Jeonju International Film Festival in South Korea (Asian premiere), Toronto ImagineNative Film & Media Arts Festival in Toronto (Canadian premiere), Image+Nation Montreal, Frameline Film Festival (San Francisco International Lesbian and Gay Film Festival), Seattle International Film Festival and was banned in Singapore because of its subject matter and is creating hell with a host of countries and is praised in others worthy of seeing by all means and is having a highly expected commercial release in Philippines for a very noteworthy director, how can we nominate this as an insignificant film? Just to avoid a deletion request, we had also, in addition to lengthy number of festivals shown, also included 8 independent media sources links / references / sources that all talk about the film. There are interviews with the director, discussion of the issues it brings to the viewer... Just read this one single review: http://www.gmanews.tv/story/166505/Filipino-film-Boy-captures-hearts-in-San-Francisco There are tens of films added every day. What I feel is Filipino and gay put together didn't suit your agenda and you got fixated on deleting to any link to this worthwhile film on Wikipedia. By the way I saw the movie here in Montreal and I strongly suggest you see it yourself before passing value judgement. It took hours of research to prepare the page with participations in festivals and independent references just to prove its singnificance. In fact the above discussion I just read proves clearly how narrowly you see things. How about others having their say in this instead of you turning it into a tit-for-tat discussion issue. werldwayd (talk) 21:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable via more than adequate coverage.--Michig (talk) 17:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are already a good number of English language sources. Presumably there are many many more Filippino sources - this should have been discussed with the Philippines and Singaporean projects to ask for help with foriegn language sourcing before even thinking of deletion. Yob  Mod  17:36, 31 October 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.