Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mockingbird Don't Sing


 * 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 per WP:SNOW. Notability for films can be based upon a significant cultural impact (see WP:NOTFILM, requirements 2, 4, and 5), however can also be based on winning a notable filmmaking award, which this has done, and as with all things, based on the number of available reliable sources. WP:N overrules all other notability guidelines. While WP:NOHARM has been used on both sides of this discussion, it's clear from the other opinions offered that this film is notable. Non-admin closure. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 16:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Mockingbird Don&

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

Completely sourceless (other than a Variety review -- and they review EVERYTHING), plot synopsis-heavy article on an independent film. No evidence or hint of any actual real-world notice or impact. Calton | Talk 00:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: If anyone voting "keep" has something other than WP:ILIKEIT, let's hear it: actual reliable sources with actual information upon which can be based more than a directory-style listing with a plot summary might be a start, or some evidence that someone, somewhere, has done more than noted its existence or that it's had even some minimal impact on the world at large. --Calton | Talk 03:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep two other reviews available via IMDb, positive statements about Kim Darby's work in it, relates to a real-world event. JJL (talk) 00:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "Based on a true story" =/= "actually notable", as notability isn't transferable. --Calton | Talk 03:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per above -- House of Scandal (talk) 00:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Has sources; has sources stating it is a based on a real-life event. --Pbroks13 01:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What "sources" would that be? --Calton | Talk 03:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - per above. matt91486 (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, three independent reviews so it passes WP:MOVIE. What sort of "impact" are you talking about? What policy requires this? Sounds like you're misreading WP:FICT. --Dhartung | Talk 01:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Some tiny sign that someone besides a few movie reviewers or DVD sellers care about this, that it has made the tiniest splash in the film community at the very least, or that sources exist that do more than regurgitate plot summaries.
 * Further, the existence of a couple of movie reviews only indicate that someone reviewed the movie and pretty much nothing else. And you'll note that the New York Times review, just added, actually isn't: it's a plain listing page with the "review" text from the All-Movie Guide", so that "independent review, well, isn't. --Calton | Talk 03:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per above. OlenWhitaker (talk) 01:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per above --   JT   Holla! 03:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note The film also won an award at the Rhode Island International Film Festival for best screenplay. For An Angel (talk) 04:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually, it came in tied for second for best screenplay, receiving "First Prize" while the winner received "Grand Prize." It's certainly not a "major award for excellence" per WP:MOVIE.--Michael WhiteT&middot;C 06:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I know, and I mentioned in the article that it was a tie. "Major" is subjective, but it's still more than plenty of other movies that don't win a single award. For An Angel (talk) 06:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - I don't especially like the trend of article creation for seemingly every banal film coming down the pipeline these days, and here we can actually do something about it (though the discussion isn't quite going as I would have liked it to). OK, so Variety reviewed it, like they do most films, and it's in the IMDb, a site the very purpose of which is to list all films ever made (and, keep in mind, IMDb ≠ Wikipedia). Beyond that? Nothing. No evidence of box-office success, no particularly notable actors (Kim Darby doesn't fit the bill), no claim to any sort of cultural impact (in response to Dhartung asking "What policy requires this?": WP:IAR, quite simply. Let's not get bogged down in legalisms. We're trying to build a better encyclopedia, and the presence of this article isn't helping, which is why it should go, even if it happens not to transgress WP:FICT.), a director who's a redlink... So why? Why on earth keep an article on such a film? No real reason; let the IMDb do it - that's what they're there for. Biruitorul (talk) 04:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You know whenever a comment begins with "I don't especially like..." that the rest isn't going to be much better. You can't cite WP:IAR whenever those of us who want to follow the rules disagree with you or whenever a deletion debate isn't going your way. There was no box-office success because it was a straight-to-DVD film. A movie doesn't have to be released in theaters to be notable. The fact that the director doesn't have an article is irrelevant. A movie can be notable even if the director isn't because as Carlton said, "notability isn't transferable." The movie was covered in more than just IMDB and Variety, it was also reviewed at filmcritic.com. There is a Dutch site that reviews the film and a Polish Wikipedia article for it which shows that the film is internationally known. It also won an award for its screenplay at a notable film festival which I referenced. These are facts. Notice how all my statements are verifiable. Whereas the tone of yours and Carlton's comments suggest that just seeing the existence of this article causes you grief. You're basically admitting that it satisfies WP:FICT but you still want it deleted because you think the film is "banal" and the only policy you're citing is WP:IAR. For An Angel (talk) 06:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's the trend toward keeping articles on irrelevant films I don't especially like, not the film itself. I certainly can cite WP:IAR when it helps us build a better encyclopedia, particularly as that is a core principle, while WP:FICT is merely a proposed policy. Wikipedia records, rather than creates, reality, so the film's presence on pl.wiki is irrelevant. A Dutch site (no evidence of its notability) reviewed it - and? The fact it was straight-to-DVD indicates it probably isn't that important. Moreover, yes, obscure directors sometimes make great films (Jack Conway made Libeled Lady - but then again, he had dozens of directorial and acting credits, while this guy has but a handful), but again, it's a hint this film is probably not of encyclopedic calibre. With all due respect to Rhode Island, what film awards are given there likely don't have much resonance either. So in sum, yes, the film is quite banal and, because its presence here detracts from the project's seriousness, we should invoke IAR to eliminate it, whether or not it satisfies proposed policy WP:FICT. Biruitorul (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - adequate for Wikipedia. I don't see how having sourced factual content hurts us one bit.  This is sourced and won an award; that's enough. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets established notability standards. IAR has never been good enough to keep an article, so I'd expect something stronger to delete one.Zagalejo^^^ 06:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I initially leaned towards delete, but I am now satisfied that the three reviews contain sufficient critical commentary to qualify as significant coverage under notability guidelines. I don't think, however, that the second-place award it won at a minor film festival establishes notability, or that the Polish Wikipedia article can be cited as evidence of being known internationally.--Michael WhiteT&middot;C 06:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to suggest that either of those by itself was enough to establish notability but, together with the critic reviews, they do help, however little. For An Angel (talk) 06:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep needs more sources, but at least it has a couple. - Chardish (talk) 06:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources are valid and it's even won an award, this is clearly a keep IMHO.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 10:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Ban deletionists instead. There is no evidence or hint of any actual positive real-world notice or impact from deletionists. I don't especially like the trend of article deletion for seemingly every WP:IDONTLIKEIT film coming down the pipeline these days, and here we can actually do something about it. Deletionists are referred to in the media as making Wikipedia worse. Beyond that? Nothing. No evidence of  success, no particularly notable members. WP:IAR, quite simply. Let's not get bogged down in legalisms. We're trying to build a better encyclopedia, and the presence of deletionists isn't helping, which is why they should go. So why? Why on earth keep people who are trying to destroy Wikipedia sourced accurate content that hurts no one? No real reason. Let them go to Facebook -  that's what they're there for. WAS 4.250 (talk) 12:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well done, I admit - but do see WP:NOHARM. Biruitorul (talk) 14:55, 9 March 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.