Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iodine (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  No Consensus relisted and still no clear consensus to keep or delete.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Iodine (film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable film. No sign this has ever had a theatrical release or TV airing. There seems to have been a single festival showing, with no other reason to think it's notable. Hairhorn (talk) 16:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep or Incubate Article is sourced and sneaking up on WP:GNG. Since the film is still making festival rounds, I would expect even more sources to become available over the next few months.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If it becomes notable in the future, it can be recreated; it isn't notable now. The film's own webpage mentions only the Montreal festival appearance, which was last August. Hairhorn (talk) 13:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no need to delete and then recreate a topic already notable per guideline, as ANY topic's notability, and this includes films, can be determined by its meeting the general notability guide... as this one does in its receiving significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, thus allowing a reasonble presumption of it satisfying the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Wikipedia is a work in progress and guideline does not demand that articles be immediately perfect.  Guideline does encourage improvable articles might remain and  be improved over time and through the course of regular editing.  The film's common name has made a search for sources difficult and the provided Find sources above is nearly useless.  However, and in looking beyond the current article in my own research per WP:AFTER, I find that the film has indeed been sceened at more than only a "single festival showing".  And while the film's own website is apparently incomplete as to its coverage, it is not used to cite the article, as it is unsuitable as a reference, being a self-published source.    Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The official website of a film is a pretty standard reference, even if it's not RS. I don't see that this film meets GNG and I don't see much hope for it in the future either... Hairhorn (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, sorry... though allowed as an external link, a film's official website is a self-published website not independent of the subject. It is not a "pretty standard reference", and never used to cite notability or lack.  I'm also sorry that you disagree that the topic is covered in WP:RS that meet WP:GNG.  Editors are allowed to compare the article as created two weeks ago to its current state in judging whether or not it might serve the project.  With respects, WP:GNG, WP:RS, WP:WIP, WP:POTENTIAL, WP:IMPERFECT, WP:IMPROVE, WP:ATD, WP:DEADLINE and other relevant guidelines and essays are all allowed to be considered by others in determining notability and potential for any article.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I consulted the website for news about screenings, not for notability... but it's all moot anyhow, I don't see any notability (actual or potential) in here at all, through GNG or otherwise. Hairhorn (talk) 21:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No... not moot at all, as that's why we're here. While some might opine delete... others might look at the article, factor in improvements and potential, and opine keep.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 21:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Coverage does not appear to be significant. Perhaps merge into Michael Stasko until notability is clearly established for a stand-alone article.-- Pink Bull  02:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete - A brief look at the sources indicates that the film was shown at the Montreal Film Festival, however this alone isn't enough for notability. Recreate the article if the film ever passes any of the general notability guidelines for films.    talk 22:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * More than a "brief" look shows the the film is receiving coverage for its festival screenings, and is slated for more festivals. Not at all surprising that a film in the festival circuit is receiving coverage for being in the festival circuit. We have more options open to us at AFD than just delete or keep. Why force recreation if it might better serve the project to incubate this for a while and allow its continued improvement while at incubation?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Its being shown at film festivals and getting coverage for that. Nothing gained by deleting it, then making it appear again in a week or two after another scheduled festival plays and reviews it.   D r e a m Focus  05:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I see two keep votes that are based on possible future notability - not even "likely" notability, just possible notability - that's not really enough to keep. Third party coverage of this film is scant. Hairhorn (talk) 00:39, 14 June 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.