Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Says


 * 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. John254 01:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Jack Says

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The guideline on notability of films gives an admittedly nonexhaustive list of reasons for inclusion:


 * 1) The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. No evidence of such.
 * 2) The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following: None of the criteria in this grouping is applicable as five years have not elapsed since the film's initial release.
 * 3) *Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.
 * 4) *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.
 * 5) *The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.
 * 6) *The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.
 * 7) The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking. No evidence of such.
 * 8) The film was selected for preservation in a national archive. No evidence of such.
 * 9) The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program. No evidence of such.

The references given do not amount to "significant coverage", and the external links are not "independent of the subject." Bongo matic  01:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Per WP:EL the external links need NOT be independent of the subject... the sources must so be... and they are. The nom's statement should not be taken as a refutation of notability because of the use of external links, as they are not what establishes notability.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Good evidence of notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Those criteria are in addition to the general notability guideline, and coverage from 4 film festivals satisfies that. Also, I remember a criterion that mentioned a film being notable when it marked an important point in a contributing person's career. Since this is Mike Reid's last film, I'd say that would qualify. - Mgm|(talk) 15:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree on being in minor festivals qualifying for GNG. The other point you're referring to is that 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," but that it should be have its own article "only if there is enough information on it that it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there." If Mike Reid is notable, then it seems unliklely that there would be too much about this film to include in an article on him. Bongo  matic  15:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep in agreement with Mgm. Per WP:GNG the extensive coverage shows notability. Further, as this is Mike Reid's last film, it further qualifies as being a final landmark in a notable contributing person's career. The nom will certainly disagree, but that's why we are here. Further, I have just done a bit of cleanup of the article per film MOS.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:54, 21 December 2008 (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.