Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pictures Of Lily (2011 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. Without prejudice to re-creation should the film become notable upon or after its release. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Pictures Of Lily (2011 film)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article about a "low-budget feature film", originally posted by its makers. Of the two references, Front Row Reviews was written by the assistant producer, and the other is a local paper gossip-column piece about the making of the film in Brighton; there is also a link to a local radio interview with the writer/director. No release date is mentioned on the film's website or Facebook page; it does not appear in IMDb. Searches are complicated by the fact that the name is that of a song by The Who, but I have found nothing to suggest that this meets the standard of WP:Notability (films). Contested PROD. JohnCD (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 22:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Userfy or Incubate until this one is released and gets greater coverage.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Userfy or Incubate. There's no harm in allowing the editor to userfy this until the film is released. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Delete - No evidence of meeting Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. - Whpq (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Retain - In the US, this would be classified as an "Independent" film. There are several other films within the Wikipedia system that have started off with stubs like this and eventually expanded to be good articles, so I'd say retain. BTW, I've gotten little notices lately that the IMDB is not an indicator of notability, as the information is (like Wikpedia) submitted by the public. Whatever, there's always a delay before IMDB info appears. The editor has been blocked, too, which complicates letting him/her userfy the article. Pkeets (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - So how would this expand into a good article? What sources would you use?  This may become a notable in the future, but right now it doesn't. -- Whpq (talk) 19:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As you suggest, sources to expand the article may or may not become available later. Contacting the author about "incubating" and unblocking him/her is one option. Also, as the film is in production, perhaps we might, according to the guidelines on incomplete films, merge the article with the Brighton article and redirect from the current article page. If we agree by consensus on that, I'll be happy to handle the revisions. Pkeets (talk) 00:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This should definitely not be merged into the Brighton article. That is an article about a city, this is about a film - simply would not be appropriate to do that.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:NFF and probably WP:GNG.  No reason to userfy, as only pertinent information is the synopsis which is a copyvio anyway as directly copied from official site.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The original author says in the comments that he wrote both, and reworded the Wikipedia article after being challenged. There is a section in the Brighton article about films shot there, where mention of this film would fit. Pkeets (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No - it most definitely would not fit in the Brighton article. The section on films is just an overview of films that have been shot there, currently just a sentence long.  Including it there would give undue weight to this (currently) non-notable film.  The synopsis is verbatim from the official website, so it clearly hasn't been re-written.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Besides, with a lack of reliable third party sources, there would be nothing to add. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur that merging to the Brighton article is not viable. -- Whpq (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Has anyone considered unblocking the original author to address some of these issues? It seems a little odd that he/she was blocked, and then a notice placed on his/her talk page about the deletion discussion. Did he/she provide the required statement for use of the wording? Am I correct that he/she is unable to participate in the current discussion? Copyright issues are easy to fix.Pkeets (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The block was a for a user name violation. It won't be unblocked.  However, there are instructions in the block notice that indicate how to register a new user name.  And to my knowledge, there's nothing stopping the original author from participating using only an IP address.  -- Whpq (talk) 19:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. There seems to be consensus that subject is not notable right now, and considering that it's an independent picture directed by and starring a bunch of unknowns, it seems unlikely to ever reach WP:GNG in the future. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We do have article on Wikipedia of independent films, cast with unknowns, that did became notable enough for Wikipedia upon release, and I am myself unable with such certainty as you to declare that this one would not. As my crystal ball does not work very well (chuckle), I chose incubation as the better option... since returning it to its COI author is problematic.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as lacking significant coverage in multiple independent third party sources. Feel free to ping my talk page if these are added to the page. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:15, 25 November 2011 (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.