Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ex Cathedra (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. ✗ plicit  23:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Ex Cathedra (film)

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

Note - please also see AfD on Liam Andrew Wright - director of this film who also is up for discussion and Banter Media, company by the same.

This film has no relevant sources on my searches on Google or elsewhere and the two references show that this was pretty much a university project that was never released in cinemas? Reads like an advertisement. Fails GNG with non reliable independent sources and 0 coverage.    Kadzi    (talk) 13:58, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.    Kadzi    (talk) 13:58, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete The film is obscure, and I couldn't find any coverage (it also lacks an Rotten Tomatoes page), there's another subject of the same name, but this 2009 film is non-notable. It has only 14 ratings on IMDB, and apparently there was an entry from the British Film Magazine, only it couldn't be opened; the only other ref is the company's non indepedent about page. Otherwise, this doesn't meet GNG or Notability (film), I support deletion per nom, and the keep vote is unconvincing. VickKiang (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and VickKiang + the sole source appears to be a personal blog (see its about page). QuietHere (talk) 16:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - I am the director of the film in question so my vote probably won't be counted but my arguments are listed above regardless. 0xCryptoDegen (talk) 14:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1172052/ - IMDB listing
 * https://www.amazon.com/Ex-Cathedra-Richard-Massara/dp/B09HJC8FCY - Amazon Video listing
 * The film was an indie film created between 2008-2009 in a world where many of the original sources are from websites that are no longer around or cached by WayBackMachine. Honestly, I believe Kadzi has it in for me for some reason. I understand there is a valid debate but the film has been around since 2009 and this page was made in 2010 - what is the rationale for deletion now given that it was deemed notable enough for IMDB (which had strict guidelines at least in 2009) and is available in the commercial market? 0xCryptoDegen (talk) 13:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:41, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. IMDb is, at best, a routine database. Inclusion there just requires that you give them some proof that the film, role, or person exists in some form or fashion. They're also not the best when it comes to verifying said proof, as we've had cases of people adding listings for fake shows, films, and even roles. My whole reason for mentioning that is just to explain why the site isn't seen as a sign of notability and can't even really be used to back up basic claims. At most it can be a jumping off point for further research. The Amazon listing is also considered to be routine, as generally speaking, almost anyone can upload films for purchase/streaming. I'm aware there's a bit more to it than that, but it's not a sign of notability. It just shows that it exists and can be viewed. Finally, as far as other sourcing goes, sourcing doesn't have to be online but it does have to be verifiable and in places Wikipedia would see as independent, reliable sourcing that goes into depth on the topic. Examples of this would be reviews in newspapers or websites such as DVD Talk, as well as articles written about the film. Awards can sometimes count towards notability, but would have to be from notable award granting institutions, as not all awards are major enough to give partial or total notability.
 * As far as notability guidelines go, they've gotten stricter over the years. To be honest, most guidelines only required proof of existence to pass notability guidelines. This quickly became unwieldy, as a lot of people began to use the site to promote stuff that was extremely non-notable. Think in terms of self-published books through iUniverse and YouTube movies shot on a cell phone by a couple of bored people in their backyard, stuff that hasn't gained any coverage at all. So the criteria got more selective in order to weed those out. It unfortunately also resulted in a lot of indie films failing notability guidelines as well. The guidelines are likely only going to become more selective as time goes by as well, as there just aren't enough editors to keep up with everything. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  14:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This was not the case in 2009. There was a lot of hoops to jump through back then. There were reviews and commentary back in 2009 when the internet was based around blog sites. Many of which are no longer available and were not cached by WayBackMachine. This article has been around since 2010 but today, after I attempted to write a Wikipedia article related to crypto it is now being targeted for deletion? My respect for Wikipedia has taken a big hit today. I saw it as maintaining the digital history of the internet. I know this post won't help my case but it is true. The film was not shot on an iPhone and uploaded to YouTube. It was selected to a world renown film festival (which no longer has records from the time online) and the wiki article has been updated countless times by the community over the past 10 years but today it is now not notable enough and will be deleted? Ok. It is what it is. I know nothing I say will change that now. 0xCryptoDegen (talk) 14:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have screenshots/clippings of the reviews and coverage? If you can show them, then we can look at them and see if they would be seen as reliable sources. The coverage doesn't have to be online, it just has to be independent of the film and cast/crew, in-depth, and in a place Wikipedia would see as reliable - even if it doesn't exist any longer. For example, DVD Verdict is no longer online as they went defunct in 2017, but reviews from their site would still be seen as a reliable source. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  18:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete. I can't find any WP:SIGCOV. Jacona (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2022 (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.