Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Key (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. J04n(talk page) 11:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Key (film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This film quite simply doesn't meet the notability requirements of WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. In particular, the film was never widely distributed and I can't find in-depth coverage by reliable third-party sources. Only three of the references provided can reasonably considered independent of the subject. The first is an anonymous review on www.videoviews.org which, as far as I know, is a pretty obscure website. The second is a list of nominees and prize winners at the World Music and Independent Film Festival. This is a very small festival and although Key won best horror film, it is worth pointing out that none of the films in that competition were ever distributed in theaters (and two of them were short films). The last is from a more credible website but it's a six sentence blurb and certainly doesn't qualify as "in-depth" coverage. I also don't see any signs that the director or other people involved (lead actor, co-scriptwriter/producer, cinematographer, music composer) are notable for other projects. Much of the content is unsourced but that is made possible by the fact that the film's director is also the author of the article. Pichpich (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but "in-depth" is not the same as "significant". Just so long as a source contains more-than-trivial information, it can be considered under WP:SIGCOV. We do need more to meet WP:NF though.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per above. A further search brings up nothing other than the above mentioned sources. The award isn't really anything that would show notability enough to merit a keep on that alone. Most awards aren't at that level of notability. The review isn't really usable either, as it's your run of the mill non-notable blog review. I have no issue with it being userfied, but I am slightly concerned as to how this article made it through AfC in its previous state. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   12:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment:Like many independent films Key did not receive theatrical distribution. It is however available at blockbuster, netflix, and many other major retailers. Within the month it will be available on VOD and ON DEMAND through major careers such as Verizon Fios, AT&T Uverse, Itunes, and Amazon.
 * The film's cinematographer David Newbert recently shot Larry Clark's latest feature "Marfa Girl". Larry Clark is an A list independent filmmaker with titles such as 'Kids' and 'Bully'. The film won the Rome International Film Festival in November 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbhamiltoniv (talk • contribs) 18:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. I got confused by the expanding credit lists of IMDb. The cinematographer David Newbert has been the DP on two feature films: Key and Larry Clark's Marfa Girl. But my basic point stands: Newbert may very well become a notable cinematographer but he currently isn't and he's certainly not at the stage where he's famous enough that he generates coverage for all projects he takes part in. Pichpich (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The issue with the director potentially being notable is that notability is not inherited by the director being notable or by him having any association with notable persons or projects. Less than 1% of any person that ever lived is so notable that all of their works become notable by association, and that's in general rather than specifically film oriented. Having an association with a notable person merely makes it more likely that something would receive coverage, but it's never a guarantee. I was unable to tell if you meant that Key won at the Rome International Film Festival or if one of Clark's other works won there. I was unable to find Key at the official website, so I'm assuming it's a separate work that won. Even if it had been Key, we would need a little more than this to show notability for the film. As I said above, most aren't notable enough to keep on that basis alone. But as far as Clark being part of an award winning film and working on something else, that falls under "not inherited". Basically, Clark would have to be along the lines of Steven Spielberg or Andy Warhol to have that level of notoriety and I'm not even sure that they're at the level of notability where all of their works become notable by association. In a nutshell, what the "so historically significant that any of his or her works may be considered notable" bit means is that because the person is so notable, the likelihood of the entirety of their works not receiving any in-depth scrutiny is very, very slim. (IE, Shakespeare is one of the very few examples of this level of notoriety.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: Due to the commoness of the word "key" in film titles, the "find sources" assigned by the AFD template gives a lot of false positives. To address this problem, editors must refine their searches. I offer a few of the possible more specific searches below.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete this film is nota notable. David Newbert may be notable, but few films are notable just because the cinmatographer was.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:20, 4 April 2013 (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.