Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commune (documentary)


 * 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 redirect to Black Bear Ranch. History will be left intact, what or whether to merge is an editorial decision. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Commune (documentary)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. There's a ton of documentaries out there, I fail to see how it's notable. Whsitchy 04:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete most of it, and merge the essentials into Black Bear Ranch. Yechiel Man 05:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - As per above, and Yechiel's statement.  Redian  (  Talk  )  06:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, Google News Archive results indicate it is notable enough, but Black Bear Ranch is really short, so a merge is far more desirable. John Vandenberg 06:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 06:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 06:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that this film and its entry meets all and more of the proposed requirements for a notable film. The first comment that contested the film was not particular in its criticism, ie "Documentaries are a dime a dozen."

Here are the criteria that are proposed for film and the Wikipedia and where "Commune" stands in regards to these. (note - I am the filmmaker)

"'A topic is notable if it has received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.'"

COMMUNE played theatrically in regular (known as at least one week) runs in Manhattan, LA, Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle and other cities gathering full, favorable (and not capsule) reviews in the NY Times, the Chicago Sun-Times, the NY Post, the NY Daily News, the Onion, Time Out, the Chicago Tribune, The LA Times, Salon.com, Variety, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Seattle Times, the LA Weekly and numerous other well regarded publications.

Other screenings beyond the theatrical run include retrospectives at the Museum of Modern Art, the Cleveland Cinematheque, the Cornell Cinema, and at the Communal Studies Conference in Marshall California in 2006. It is being used in the coursework many colleges including courses at SUNY Purchase, and other well regarded film schools. The film will be shown on the Sundance Channel and will received a full DVD release from First Run Features, a venerable independent film distributor that distributes the work of acclaimed filmmakers like Michael Apted and his award winning "7 Up" documentary series.

Additionally the work is distinguished from the commune itself as the product of a group process between the filmmakers and some of the residents of the commune. Many of the residents did not appear in the work. The work is intended to contest the marginalizing of the history of the counterculture and as a reexamination of the values of an era that still is confusing and misunderstood, precisely, I would argue because of the potency of the zeitgeist.

Here are excerpts of some of reviews from above.

“Amid the dozens of documentaries made about various aspects of '60s society and culture, "Commune" stands out for its ambiguity, honesty and sheer human clarity…an extraordinary collage.” Andrew O'Hehir, Salon

“A breezy, informal history of a long-running California commune begun in the summer of 1968 and still in existence, offers the fascinating spectacle of observing people then and now.” Stephen Holden, NY Times

“Celebrating the desire to immerse oneself in a collective, world-changing enterprise..” J. Hoberman, Village Voice — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.141.140 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 10 June 2007
 * Keep. Film has received attention from critics major enough to pass the notability threshold I think, although the article itself is in dire need of an editor willing to take the time to Wikify it (e.g. to remove the excessive external linking).  Ford MF 10:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Long diatribe by the filmmaker himself aside (COI), there is no assertion of notability. /Blaxthos 15:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with Black Bear Ranch and leave a redirect behind here. I hold that the film does indeed fall foul of our notability guidelines in and of itself but since it is associated with this notable community it should get a mention there. A1octopus 20:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The film-maker's page was deleted. Kwsn (Ni!) 15:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with Black Bear Ranch, per comment above G  1  ggy  Talk/Contribs 00:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I would like to propose that this article does in fact meet the notability guidelines and incorporates a multitude of reliable external sources. I am unclear as to what more is needed to prove its notability or to Wikify it. I would like to add though, that this film is of great significance as both an art piece and educational tool. It tells a compelling and eye-opening story of communes, hippies, and the sixties in general, not just in reference to Black Bear Ranch; therefor it would be a mistake to merge it with that article. This film has been formally reviewed by well known publications, and has been shown at large scale film festivals around the world. It certainly seems to me that this film has proven its significance for inclusion in Wikipedia. Sashm 02:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to Black Bear Ranch. The article does not effectively assert notability except in the statement "It's among the first of a group of films that reexamine and contest the negation of the ethos of the 1960's and 1970's". The proposed policy for film notability suggests notability is met if "The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics".  Although two full length reviews seem to be available, the film is not yet widely distributed.  Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so a merge with no prejudice against recreation if/when more reliable sources are available is indicated. Ichibani  utc 02:42, 18 June 2007 (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.