Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denizen (2010 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   Delete for now. With no prejudice towards recreation. henrik • talk  10:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Denizen (2010 film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Unremarkable film. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MOVIE. A "making-of" short appears to have won an award, not this film. Note that the DoorQ reference is actually a blog. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the opportunity to discuss. I disagree with the proposal for deletion.


 * I appreciate your guidance on adding more references from resources.


 * When seeking out references to establish the notability of a film, and to provide the necessary information for a thorough article of high quality, consider some of these resources:


 * A film's entry in the The Internet Movie Database can provide valuable information, including links to reviews, articles, and media references. A page in the database does not by itself establish the film's notability, however. Film and entertainment periodicals abound.  Many magazines in Category:Film magazines can provide good references and indicators of notability.


 * I did some more research this evening and have added references from local newspaper, film and entertainment periodicals.


 * It is a yet undistributed film, but is notable.


 * Some films that don't pass the standard notability may still be notable, and should be evaluated on their own merits. The article's ability to attest to a film's notability through verifiable sources is significant. The sources for Denizen are verifiable.


 * The Denizen article features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person, JA Steel, and is a major part of her career.


 * J.A. Steel, one of the few female directors in the industry. She is a director, producer, actor, editor, fight choreographer and stunt person, in addition to writer and composer.


 * The article on the Denizen film was created as there enough information on the film that it would clutter up the biography page of J.A. Steel if it was mentioned there.


 * The short film was about the filmmaker and the making of the film Denizen, and the struggles she has had while working a hostile industry, 92% dominated by men.


 * If you have access to IMDB Pro, you will see Denizen (http://www.pro.imdb.com/title/tt1194424/), is in the Top 35 completed features awaiting release (http://www.pro.imdb.com/inproduction/status-completed). This is a major accomplishment by a female director.
 * A lot of this discussion is about Steel's achievements as a female film director. That is arguably evidence for her notability, but doesn't make the film notable per se. --Slashme (talk) 08:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Here are some additional references for Denizen that I found this evening that are not included in the Wikipedia article:
 * http://www.parkcityfilmmusicfestival.org/screenings.html
 * This seems to be a minor award (silver medal in a minor music festival competition) for the impact of music in a short film: is this not also about the documentary? --Slashme (talk) 08:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * http://cinemafantastique.be/Denizen.html
 * This basically describes Steel as a producer of low-budget movies with low distribution numbers and anticipates Denizen to be another in the same vein, for example saying that the monster is more likely to make you laugh than scream.
 * http://www.cinemafantastique.net/Interview-de-Tiffany-Shepis-scream.html
 * This is an interview where one of the actors basically just says that she can't say much about the film. Not much support for notability. --Slashme (talk) 08:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8xyn0_ja-steel-denizen-sundance-2009_shortfilms
 * http://www.oklahomafilm.org/uploads/Microsoft%20Word%20-%20FINALAdvisory%20Board%20Report%20-%20April%202008.pdf
 * This just mentions the film in passing. --Slashme (talk) 08:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Rather than proposing deletion, I would appreciate your help in improving the article as others have done. There are a few hundred articles on upcoming films, many in 2009 and 2010, that might also benefit from your assistance.


 * Thanks so much.
 * Action grrl (talk) 05:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: not notable as such: minor low-budget as-yet unreleased action movie. --Slashme (talk) 08:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and assist-Action grrl's request to improve the article is both reasonable and kind, traits rarely seen when articles are put up for AfD. I would say this show of good faith buys her some good faith in return, what say you, Wikipedians? Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 08:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Hi Chris, I agree that we are seeing ample evidence of good faith, and we should be careful not to be impolite, but the test for notability is independent of who's asserting it, and I just don't see the evidence here! --Slashme (talk) 10:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I really appreciate all of the interest shown, and the assistance provided for improvement, both to me and the article. I have learned so much in this process.  I hope that those who advocate for deletion will reflect on the references in the article about the production, and consider what this woman has overcome to bring this independent action film to completion on a micro-budget, such as   And then perhaps contemplate the industry review of the pre-release version at   The review is by a recognized expert in the genre, who watched the film and describes the unique stunt work, far-flung locations and complex plot, notable for independent film projects.  The award mentioned above from the Park City Music Festival was for the music video/trailer for the movie Denizen itself, not the short film on the behind-the-scenes, which also won an award.  My speculation is that there will be future awards for the film, and additional critical acclaim, though time will tell, just as it will for the other to-be released upcoming films.  Thanks for all of your help. --Action grrl (talk) 14:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Added 10th reference for article, from Pretty Scary: For Women in Horror by Women in Horror. Action grrl (talk) 14:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The references you added to the article are NOT RELIABLE, no one can check if they are telling the truth. WP:RELIABLE -- MisterWiki'  talk   contribs  03:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) Dailymotion video was uploaded by himself, not by a news coverage of the website itself.
 * 2) There are needed third-party sources, not by the organization.
 * 3) Isn't IMDB Pro can be edited by the same users and add info about they? http://www.imdb.com/help/show_leaf?resumeaddnewname -- MisterWiki   talk   contribs  03:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The references in the article include third-party sources such as: Pretty Scary: For Women in Horror by Women in Horror; Muskogee Phoenix newspaper; Killing Boxx web news; JobLo Movie Network News web news; FilmStew.com (a Yahoo! Entertainment contributor); B Movie Man; Human Rights Campaign; Tulsa World newspaper; and the Nevada Film Festival. All are available to the world to check.


 * The information listed on IMDB can be submitted by an individual or company; howerver, it is approved by administrators and is subject to peer review. It appears you are confusing the issues of adding information to the IMDB and the StarMeter I referenced.  http://www.imdb.com/help/show_leaf?prowhatisstarmeter


 * For films to be listed in the IMDB, they have to be published in the Hollywood Reporter or Variety magazine, or they can be approved by an IMDB administrator, if accepted into a Withoutabox sanctioned film festival. Films not meeting this criteria are removed, thus a third-party source verifies the information for the film on the IMDB.


 * Out of over 3 million people listed on the IMDB, this week JA Steel is ranked 2,925 on the StarMeter or in the top 99.9% of those in the entertainment business, by the 57 million people who visit IMDB each month.


 * J.A. Steel, and her film Denizen (2010), meet the standards of Wikipedia for reliability and notability. Assistance to improve the article is most welcome.  Thank you.
 * Action grrl (talk) 17:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Action grrl, please understand, the article of that film is not notable, it is not 2010 now and the sources (probably you provided) are not reliable, sorry. -- MisterWiki  talk   contribs  23:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: MisterWiki  talk  There are 10 independent references in the article.  They are all available for investigation and review.  They are reliable.  Any person in the entertainment industry can attest to this fact.  The interview with the filmmaker is on the RealTV website about the film: http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=55568695&__preferredculture=en-US&__ipculture=en-US  As to the release date, there are several hundred articles on upcoming films, many in 2009 and 2010, on Wikipedia.  This week, Denizen is ranked 2,766 on the IMDB MovieMeter, out of over one million past, present and upcoming films in the database, placing it in the top 99.93% of all movies notable and reliable enough to make it into the industry database.  You can sign up for a two-week free trial of IMDbPro and investigate it for yourself, and learn a lot about the movie business in the process.  The film does indeed meet the requirements of notable, as defined by Wikipedia and articulated in my comments you lined out above.  This article has been tagged by an Editor for Rescue, so this deletion debate is moot.  Again, I urge you help build, rather than tear down.  Thanks.  Action grrl (talk) 01:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry but MySpace is not reliable (maybe the worst source that Wikipedia could reference). -- MisterWiki  talk   contribs  23:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a strange feeling that you are J.A. Steel. You cannot spam your works here in Wikipedia, sorry, but wait until another person write a article for 'your' film. -- MisterWiki  talk   contribs  23:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, take a look at WP:AUTO. -- MisterWiki  talk   contribs  23:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It is unfortunate that the totality of the references continue to be ignored. The MySpace site of RealTV is a news outlet with interviews from people throughout the entertainment industry.  However, it is not referenced in the article, and is again a moot point. I am aware of WP:AUTO, and it is not applicable.  However, it appears WP:HA might be a more appropriate policy for discussion. Action grrl (talk) 01:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the references you provided are not reliable. This is not harassment, but please take a look at WP:RS. Myspace, blogs, and other kind of sources are not reliable. If you have a source like BBC or a reliable newspaper, let me know, if not, your article will be deleted. -- MisterWiki  talk   contribs  02:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Firstly I'm assuming good faith, but good faith can't overrule policy. More I can't find any reliable sources.  They may become available upon release however.   leads me to believe this may become true.  I myself am not that well acquanted with policy on this matter, but looking into it it doesn't matter if it may become notable.  It must be notable now.  Therefore... NativeForeigner (talk) 03:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Clarification: I can't find any reliable sources showing importance. NativeForeigner (talk) 03:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Tentative Delete for the above reasons in the comment NativeForeigner (talk) 03:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.::  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable film, made by non-notable people, starring non-notable actors. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment In the past few weeks, I have observed several articles relating to the work of Lesbian filmmakers and Lesbian actress summarily deleted off of Wikipedia.  These articles were notable to our community, and they are important to us.  There appears to be an unfortunate trend of Deletionism and bias on Wikipedia.  There are several reliable sources provided in the article that are standard mediums of communication and news in the movie industry and the LGBT community.  The claim that they are not reliable sources appears to demonstrate a lack of this understanding for our community.  I have made my case, I have welcomed collaboration, I have appealed for understanding. If an Administrator is able to place the article into my workshop, I would appreciate the assistance. Thank you. Action grrl (talk) 05:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether or not the filmaker is gay or not isn't a factor that I even consider. I could care less. Not notable is not notable. I do, however, discount niche publications that cover only items that promote their cause/agenda/whatever. The reasoning you use is no different than the ones used by Pokemon fans, Star Wars fans or the followers of different religious factions. Notability is about a single "community". Niteshift36 (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete After going through each reference and examining them one at a time it appears to me that most of the refs are not reliable sources. The truly RS does a good job of describing the movie, but I am concerned that this doesn't establish notability on its own. If more RSes can be added then I am sure I can suggest keeping the article, but for now it is a weak delete. Basket of Puppies  06:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I have just done some major clean-up on the article, addresing many of the nominator's concerns. It would be prudent to allow expansion and further sourcing as film gets its 2010 theatrical release in a few weeks. Note: the film (not just the "making of short) has already screened at festivals such as Sundance. And yes, genre-specific reviews are often dismissed out-of-hand... but they are indicative of the growing attention the film is receiving. Further, the article now includes several in-depth reliable sources toward meeting WP:NF through WP:GNG, and it is reasonable to presume that more will come with general release, not less.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 12:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. . I appreciate your motto, I'd rather fix the damn pipe than complain about having wet feet. - MQS And, your experience and collaboration...and time...as an Editor is so very appreciated. Action grrl (talk) 13:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Again you are referencing not-rs. The article will be deleted if you don't provide a RELIABLE SOURCE. Also, 2nd reference says CNN but it is iReport. -- MisterWiki  talk   contribs  14:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I can only suppose with good faith that you somehow missed the header "CNN iReport" at the top of the page you dismiss. And to emulate your need for emphasis, per WP:RS, "HOW RELIABLE A SOURCE IS, AND THE BASIS FOR ITS RELIABILITY, DEPENDS ON THE CONTEXT." Reasonable editors might see that even Wikipedia policy recognizes and accepts that a small-budget, independent film pending release might not receive the same press as a big-budget, highly-touted, blockbuster film full of notables. This filmaker and her film have, so far, more coverage than might be expected toward meeting WP:NF through WP:GNG for such, and it is reasonable to presume that more will come with general release, not less.  Guideline allows that each might be considered for what it is... not what it is not. At the very least, incubation might well be considered.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 16:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Appears that you missed the "i". I-Report. Anybody can report. Not reliable. I can write that Wikipedia is the worst encyclopedia ever in iReport, and is it reliable?. No. -- MisterWiki  talk   contribs  17:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Per all the reasons above.-- MisterWiki  talk   contribs  14:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * One might think that even failure of reason might make it difficult to ignore the coverage, even if supported by genre-specific reviews. Thank you for again making your opinion very clear.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 16:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I reviewed the links you provided. Unfortunately, the first 2 are reliable, but not too much, they appear to be a primary source, like the other ones, and the blog pages. -- MisterWiki  talk   contribs  17:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Found with a diligent search are a number of genre-specific reviews from genre-specific reviewers that are not primary sources. User:Action grrl mentioned a few up above, but there are more. But because they do not yet have their own articles on Wikipedia (as do such as Fangoria, Bloody-Disgusting, DVD Talk, FEARnet, Film Threat, & Rue_Morgue), I hesitated to list them here... no matter that they are independent of the production and are considered within their field of expertise to be generally authoritative on the topic of horror film... because I did not wish this to devolve into a debate on how expectations for being authoritative on the subject of independent horror films for sites like FEARnet or Bloody-Disgusting and their kin, might or might not compare with New York Times or Washington Post being authoritative in other areas. Its like a comparison of Apples and Spinach... both having something to offer, but not useful in the same ways. And no... I am not speaking about blog pages.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 17:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * strong keep very well referenced article. Ikip 17:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think that these sources are very reliable. Even in context, they are at best adequate when looking at policy.  Why do you feel that it is why referenced? Thanks, NativeForeigner (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice. The article is premature, and the film is not-yet-notable.  If and when this film receives substantial coverage I have no objection to the Wikipedia article being recreated. JBsupreme (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that the article is low budget, maybe it will never be notable. -- MisterWiki  talk   contribs  21:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The early sources seem adequate for our purposes. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've stroke the comment. Our purposes are not going to promote any kind of non-notable films. We are a encyclopedia, not a film database. -- MisterWiki  talk   contribs  02:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do not strike another editor's comments just because you disagree. I have undone that edit.  We only strike posts that are from sockpuppets or remove ones that are outright imflammatory.  Please also be careful of WP:CIVIL.  The "not to promote LGBT-related films" comes off as a bit homophobic.  We cover films based on verifiability through multiple reliable sources.  The nature of the films is not relevant.  Thank you.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 03:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment What are our purposes? NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 00:48, 31 December 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.