Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forever (1992 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. The primary "keep" argument is that the film involves notable actors; however, notability is not inherited. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 20:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Forever (1992 film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No plot description or sources cited, and a Google search with keywords "forever 1992 movie OR film" yields almost nothing on the topic except for an imdb page. Also, is this movie notable? cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 00:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete this would also be a good candidate for a CSD. Ridernyc (talk) 01:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - This film starred Sean Young and was a major release, even if it bombed and no one remembers it. It has support from the American cinema task force on WP, and it's stubbed by WikiProject Films. SteveStrummer (talk) 04:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Projects go through and tag and template every article automatically that's one of the things they do. You also mentioned  a task force that as far as I can tell is no longer active.  Please provide sources that establish notability if you think this deserves to be kept. Ridernyc (talk) 11:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. It doesn't satisfy any of the guidelines in WP:NF. Zero reviews at Rotten Tomatoes. "Direct-to-video" = major release? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So the New York Times review doesn't count?--Oakshade (talk) 02:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - that is not a full length review. So, no, it doesn't really count.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 04:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Title per The New York Times: Forever: A Ghost of A Love Story. Not a direct-to-video, as the film was first screened at the Cannes film market in 1992 under its original title. However, when it was released on VHS in 1996, it had the shorter title Forever.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Film staring multiple notable actors and was reviewed by the New York Times/All Movie Guide.--Oakshade (talk) 02:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:NF. No evidence it was a wide release (evidence points to direct-to-video as mentioned above). Could not find two or more full length reviews by nationally known critics. Not historically notable, no major award, no evidence it was selected for preservation in national archive, no evidence it is taught in academic setting, nothing unique about it, not a major part of the career of any of the notable people involved, not successfully distributed anywhere.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 04:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, evidence shows film had a release in 1992 under one name, and did not hit video until 1996 under another.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * playing once at a festival is not a release. Ridernyc (talk) 06:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - it was "released" at the Cannes film market, which is not quite the same as the festival itself. I don't think that counts as a release in theaters.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 16:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So basically there with every other movie searching for a distribution deal. I figured this was case just did not know there was a totally separate side market at the festival for this, I just know hundreds if not thousands of non-notable films are at the festival every year.  Even if it was "released" under a different name it's pointless as we still have no references to establish any hint of notability for either title. Ridernyc (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't think the NYT review - at one paragraph - is enough to show notability or to form the basis of a proper article. WP:NF explicitly speaks of "full length reviews" by "two or more nationally known critics". --Mkativerata (talk) 18:55, 11 August 2010 (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.