Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bright Leaves


 * 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 speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Bright Leaves

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The only source is a book that only briefly mentions Bright Leaves. The only other reliable source I can find is this. Rimmel . Edits Talk 04:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Some wikipedia history for our nominator. AFD is not intended for copy editing and article improvement.  Even stubs, like this one, represent an considerable amount of work.  Articles on notable topics should never be deleted just because, as the excellent essay WP:Arguments to Avoid says WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  The wikipedia is well over a decade old, and the criteria for inclusion are stricter now.  When this article was started ten years ago we didn't even have the cite templates and the   html tag available for our references.  Of the 400,000 articles that existed in 2005, when this article was written, there are lots of articles that have been kept up to date.  And there are some, that, when given only a cursory glance, might look to someone impatient, like they could never measure up.  But our deletion policy still says that deletion should be based on the notability of the topic, not on some contributor's opinion of the current state of the article.  The wikipedia is not well served by deleting adequate articles on unquestionably notable topics, when they met the inclusion criteria current, when they were written, and merely need an update.  Our nominator wrote: "The only other reliable source I can find is this" -- and then offers a fine reference they found themselves.  Our nominator's time would have been far better spent incorporating that reference into this article.  Geo Swan (talk) 12:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything that indicates the nominator suggests it be deleted "just because" or because it needs work. Nom is obviously looking at the notability of the article as a whole, which is why they went out to look for other sources. Whether that was a thorough job is another question. ~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 15:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Keep  The director Ross McElwee is a professor of film-making at Harvard University, he is extremely highly regarded by those who study film. His work has been written about, in detail.  This film, specifically, has been written about, in detail.  Although our nominator asserted they couldn't find any references, the first item tossed up by google book search contained 'multiple entire chapters'' devoted to the film.  Geo Swan (talk) 12:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am changing my !vote to Speedy Keep, since it premiered at Cannes, and it is the subject of extensive coverage in scholarly works, meaning that it sails through the notability criteria at WP:MOVIE. WP:MOVIE also says "The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics."  Here are links to reviews of the film by Roger Ebert, Todd McCarthy, Desson Thomson, Ella Taylor, Ty Burr, Carrie Rickey, Lou Lumenick, Kevin Thomas, Stephen Holden, David Sterritt, Michael Atkinson (writer), Stephen Hunter.  Geo Swan (talk) 15:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)




 * Speedy Keep and close as the well-meant nominator badly missed the target in whatever his WP:BEFORE might have been. Heck, it was easy to find Metacritic lists 20 reviews in reliable sources, and even the "unreliable" IMDB offers links to multiple reviews. Wow. Per WP:NRVE,  WP:NF is easily met. Sorry to have to point out the obvious, but this is a very bad nomination.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 08:04, 3 September 2015 (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.