Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crossing the Line (2008 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. The relevance of the sources referred to by Spinningspark has not been contested, even though I have to discount the "it's notable because it's by Peter Jackson" opinions; these are not based on our policies or guidelines. (This closure has been changed after a discussion on my talk page.)  Sandstein   20:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Crossing the Line (2008 film)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:GNG — 07  ● 💬   15:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —  07  ● 💬   15:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: I found nothing to show notability. SL93 (talk) 07:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: This is notable in several ways: It is directed by an Oscar-winning movie director. It was the first film shot with a Red One camera, the first readily available 4K digital cinema camera. Viewing it inspired other filmmakers (including Steven Soderburgh) to try shooting on digital cameras. BigBadaboom0 (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Notability isn't inherited (awards of director). See WP:NOTINHERITED. Platonk (talk) 22:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:22, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:22, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:IAR and WP:CREEP. I’m unable to see how the encyclopedia or reader experience is improved by following the destructive Afd and notability guidelines which indicate this and many other informative and factually accurate articles about topics with verifiable existence need to be deleted. The guidelines need to be revamped to remove their destructive effects, but in the meantime we must simply ignore them per IAR, a pillar policy. —В²C ☎ 16:15, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Per BigBadaboom0 Donald D23   talk to me  14:24, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That editor's keep isn't based on any notability guideline. The last reasoning also fails WP:V. SL93 (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisted to allow for discussion of sources presented, but not added to article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 00:57, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. The claims do not stack up to notability following the guideline in WP:NFO. Being the first to use a particular camera isn't notable in itself and is more properly included in the article about the camera, the film is not significant in Jackson's body of work and the lack of any real sources show it is not considered notable by critics or the media more broadly. QuiteUnusual (talk) 16:24, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - Content is already in the director's article. This film doesn't qualify for a standalone article per WP:NFILM. Platonk (talk) 22:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I am surprised at the AfD on this one. A film by Peter Jackson is enough period. This is litteraly what Wikipedia is here for, information, knowledge, learning. Why would you delete a film by a well known director with a well known cast, using notible film equipment for the first time?Super (talk) 06:37, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:FAME and WP:NFILM. Platonk (talk) 17:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Covered in reasonable detail in Leotta, Peter Jackson and Kadner, RED: The Ultimate Guide to Using the Revolutionary Camera. Numerous other books mention it as a film of historical importance because of the camera used. SpinningSpark 20:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep It might be a promotional test film for a new camera type, but at the end of the day it's still a Peter Jackson short film that helped Red get off the ground, and passes NMOVIES despite being made for a niche.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 03:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - I don't think WP:NOTINHERITED applies here. Okay, the fact that it is a work by Peter Jackson does not necessarily mean it's notable, no, but it's a pretty big hint that it is.  To use an extremely exaggerated illustration (I'm not saying these two people are on the same level), the mere fact that a text was written by William Shakespeare does not necessarily make that text notable, but with some people, anything they touch is bound to be scrutinized and examined by a lot of people-- the association isn't enough, but it's a huge hint that there exists enough if you just look for it. So on that point, this film is referenced and noted for the camera used, and the influence that brought. These references are sufficient to meet notability guidelines.  Spinningspark's references alone are enough to establish WP:GNG. Fieari (talk) 05:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep For numerous reasons already listed. Jamesallain85 (talk) 13:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion by editors such as Spinningspark that show a pass of WP:GNG in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 03:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per some good work by Spinningspark passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2021 (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.