Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imagination (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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Imagination (film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Can't see how this film meets wikipedia notability criterea. As I read wp:film, there are two poss. arguments for notability of films, and this film meets none of them. These are: 1 “The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." This is clearly not met - esp. the second part. 2. "The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following: Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release. The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release. The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release. The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema. The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking. The film was selected for preservation in a national archive. The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program." This is also clearly not the case. Thus, the article should be deleted. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 23:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note to nominator: You've made an error in your nomination, as it is inappropriate to use inapplicable criteria in judging a film. As this is a 2007 film, your using criteria that apply only to films five years or older cannot be used for this article until 2012. Please refer to WP:TOOSOON.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per reasonable though not overwhelming coverage. WP:NF is intended as a specialized version of WP:N, but that does not mean WP:N is inapplicable. What you quoted are "attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist", because some films, especially older ones, may not reflect their notability so readily in search engine results. I find the presence of reviews at Variety and Journal International to be a good indicator; we just may not be able to find additional references with an easy Google search. Actually, that might not be true... I found this just now with a little searching. It may be that this article will not be large in size, but I think there is sufficient material to sustain a minimal article. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 23:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment NF states clearly that "This page gives some rough guidelines intended to be used by Wikipedia editors to decide whether a film should or should not have an article on Wikipedia." Thus NF is the standard to be used and it is these that it fails. I agree that older films may not turn up in search engine hits, but this is a very recent film. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read my note above. You've made an error in your incorrect use of inapplicable guidelines.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, NF gives rough guidelines that are intended to be used, which does not mean that "NF is the standard to be used". Bigger digger (talk) 23:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 *  Speedy Strong Keep and strongly suggest the nominator withdraw his nomination. Not only is his nomination flawed (it happens), but even the most cursory of WP:BEFORE would have showed him this film as reviewed in numerous sources, and thus meets WP:NF inspades: Ion Cinema, Frames Per Second Magazine, DVD Verdict, Variety, Short End Magazine, Late Film Magazine, DVD Spin Doctor, Joblo, Hollywood Jesus, Film Intuition, The Independent Critic, Twitch, Mystical Movie Guide, Big Picture Big Sound, Campus Circle, Dream Logic, DVD Talk, AMC Film Critic, Portland Tribune, and many others. There is really no need for this discussion to continue. Seriously.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Easily meets requirements. Dr.  Blofeld  21:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to have some coverage.Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Easy, more than enough coverage for notability standards. Silver  seren C 15:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The criteria cited seem to give short shrift to avant garde or experimental cinema. As much distaste as I have for the filmmaker or his friends having tried to use this and the Eric Leiser article self-promotionally, Imagination has gotten much more coverage than most avant garde or experimental films get. Film Journal International, from the same publisher as The Hollywood Reporter and other periodicals, is a major industry trade magazine, and a cursory Googling reveals reviews from the sources that another editor notes above, plus the AMC cable channel's FilmCritic.com and the granddaddy of fim reportage, Variety. It seems proper that if Variety covers a film, then a comprehensive encyclopedia such as this should also.--Tenebrae (talk) 02:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And worth mentioning, is that the original author has not touched that article, nor any others, since August 5 2007. So perhaps it might be reasonably considered that the contributions of numerous non-conflicted editors over the following 3 years has kinda removed the stigma of the original author's narrow field of interest.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.    Snotty Wong   prattle 04:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Snotty. I tagged it myself in order to request assistance in its improvement, as actually fixing articles can be of great help to the project. Care to assist beyond the drive-by?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:55, 5 September 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.