Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Down Under the Big Top


 * 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   no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Down Under the Big Top

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not appear to meet any notability standard. I found http://www.allmusic.com/album/down-under-the-big-top-mw0001077143 which doesn't discuss the video at all, and http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1858600/ which at least lists the cast, but nothing else. Fails WP:NOTFILM, WP:GNG and while not an album, fails WP:NALBUMS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I should mention that there may be a review in Christian music media such as CCM Magazine from around the time of the release, but I do not have access to archives earlier than 2001 (see http://www.ccmmagazine.com/magazines/2001/). If such references could be found, then I would certainly change my mind. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:GNG. Paviliolive (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. The band is obviously and solidly notable; this project's separate notability seems to be marginal.   Neither IMDb nor Rotten Tomatoes  have any external reviews for this project.  I did find a brief review in the Sun-Sentinel, and a mention of the project, in an article about their big record "Shine", in a CCM book called "100 Greatest Songs in Christian Music" . --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment The band and the director are individually notable, but I don't recall a big splash related to this direct-to-VHS video. The video gets a single sentence in The Encyclopaedia of Contemporary Christian Music (2002) while the band gets two and a half pages covering the first 12 or 13 years of the band, who are now going on to 28 years (with three lead vocalists). Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 10:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Delete. This brings back memories. It was an hour long film marketed and distributed to be sold alongside music videos at christian bookstores (I don't have a source for that, just my recollection). It is possible that there exists print coverage from the time, but my own search came up with nothing more than what Arxiloxos has already mentioned.  Christian music artists at the time were inching toward long-form video projects and this seems to be one of the most elaborate manifestations of that trend (other examples include the DC Talk movie and "Carman: The Champion.")  However, this seems to have received even less press than those other projects and I suspect that even with unlimited resources it would be hard to prove lasting notability. The name of the work should remain in the Steve Taylor article. Wickedjacob (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. In addition to the sources above, I found this from Billboard, which added to them should be enough to squeak past GNG. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Good find. The sources above do not support notability as they're empty of any content. This makes only one source which fails "multiple". Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I wouldn't call this (the Sun-Sentinel review) "empty of any content". The movie also appears to be mentioned in the book 100 Greatest Songs in Christian Music, but the pages that actually mention it aren't in the gBooks copies alas, but there is clearly offline content from print sources from the time of release. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not "significant coverage" either. It's only a few paragraphs. If there was a lot of that then we'd have enough to meet notability guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr  \ talk / 07:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)




 * Keep (mostly thanks to The Bushranger). The Billboard (magazine) article was definitely substantive and significant, and while the Sun Sentinel article was brief, it was not trivial.  Being among the "100 Greatest Songs in Christian Music" puts it just over the top for me. showing it has made it mark and become part of the enduring record. WP:NF is met. With respects to Walter Görlitz, "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail..." and "Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material."  Not to offend, and while wonderful to have, the "substantial" coverage you appear to wish for is not per guideline nor definition. Indeed, even "only a few paragraphs" can be considered significant coverage.   Schmidt,  Michael Q. 17:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * How can a long-form video be one of the "100 Greatest Songs in Christian Music"? Just because a single song is in that list doesn't mean this video relates to it. That song was released two albums before this video was released. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not own the film so I cannot speak toward how its songtrack or how its music is listed in that book. However, other sourcable assertions of notability are made in the article in 1) this being the very first film of a notable group The Newsboys and 2) it being the first screenplay written by notable director Steve Taylor.  As verifiable, both facts can be considered under WP:NF... IE: "The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career."  When verifiable, such important firsts usually meet that notability criteria even if there were a lack of SIGCOV.    Schmidt,  Michael Q. 01:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Then the source did not do its research as Taylor had done two previous screenplays. He did one as a film student and another for himself with along-form video. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And your own assertion that the reliable sources made an error is based upon what?  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 15:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Based on the information I just provided. The student project is discussed in the liner notes of Now the Truth Can Be Told (http://www.sockheaven.net/discography/taylor/nttcbt/ http://www.allmusic.com/album/now-the-truth-can-be-told-mw0000626026) and other locations. The long form video I would have to dig up. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no way to determine how you reached that conclusion, but thank you. The non-RS WP:SPS SockHeven.net link while sharing Taylor's thoughts on development of an earlier video project, makes no mention of his writing a feature film screenplay as a student, nor does the non-RS "liner notes press release" blurb, and neither does the listing at the Allmusic.com link. Writing songs and putting them together for a long-form video music compilation is NOT screenwriting. Contrarily (and others will check for themselves), the authored article in  reliable source Billboard (magazine) tells us "Although he had never written a screenplay, Taylor tackled the project with great enthusiasm."  And continues by quoting Taylor himself speaking toward the steps he took to ensure his screenplay was done properly.  Wow, certainly a lot of usable information found in a source you declare to User:The Bushranger way up above as "empty of content". Thanks though for sharing your thoughts. I will step away for now and allow others to comment, and look for other sources just as suitable as are Billboard and Sun-Sentinel for establishing this film's notability and further verifying the significant firsts under WP:OEN. Be well.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 21:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I never tried to link to a source, I simply stated where I read the information and linked to the album. I'm sorry if you thought I was linking you to the liner notes. AGF and go purchase a copy of the disc to read the liner notes.
 * As for not being a RS, I'm sorry you don't know what you're talking about. It has the blessing of the subject, he has linked to it in several discussions, and is the authoritative source on Steve Taylor's music. See http://www.sockheaven.net/thanks.html. http://www.sockheaven.net/videography/ lists other video works that he had done. And that student film, his article describes it and lists his other early works at Steve Taylor.
 * As for NOR, saying that a screenplay was done properly does not mean that it was his first.
 * Feel free to read the Steve Taylor article in The Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music which starts on page 928. We find an entry on p.932 that describes this project as a "an ambitious minimovie with The Newsboys". That's and the sentence on p.627 are the only mentions of it in the entire tome. However, it discusses Taylor's work on a film called St. Gimp which had been working on "for many years" at that point, which is the other source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * An amateur's, school, short film is NOT a professional's first feature-film screenplay. Linking to an unsourced assertion in a Wikipedia BLP filmography is not exactly helpful. But thanks for proving my point. Best,  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 23:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And a "mini-movie" isn't a feature-film.
 * I thought you were going to "step away for now and allow others to comment". Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I would love for others knowledgeable in film to comment. Let other voices be heard. According to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, American Film Institute, and British Film Institute, a feature film runs for 40 minutes or longer. When you refer to a 60 minute film as a "mini-movie" you give the impression that Taylor's screenwriting work was the same as for some 5-minute student short film. That denigration still does not dismiss the significant coverage in published reliable sources of the film. They may not be multiple-page manifestos, but "substantial" coverage is not the guideline requirement. Non-trivial is.
 * Your second paragraph just after your nomination statement says "I should mention that there may be a review in Christian music media such as CCM Magazine from around the time of the release, but I do not have access to archives earlier than 2001 (see http://www.ccmmagazine.com/magazines/2001/). If such references could be found, then I would certainly change my mind. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)". Such would fall under WP:NTEMP and WP:OSO.
 * I apologize to all for digressing into arguments over guideline interpretation. A simple explanation of my vote is that this film meets applicable notability standards through having just enough coverage and because it features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career." Be well.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 14:08, 6 March 2014 (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.