Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polycarp (2007 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 keep. WjBscribe 23:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Polycarp (2007 Film)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable film that doesn't meet the criteria of WP:MOVIE WebHamster 00:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The production company also auctioned a walk on speaking part in the movie and gave the proceeds to charity. Dbromage  [Talk]  02:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete the film fails all five ponits listed at WP:MOVIE   Sasha Callahan   01:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - Does indeed seem to be non-notable as per WP:MOVIE as well as on on general principles. That beeing said, Google search for "Polycarp movie" yeilds about 22,500 pages, and if someone digs out of there some reliable independent significant coverage of the movie, I'll change my vote. ikh (talk) 01:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Does appear to be borderline notable. One of the criteria for WP:MOVIE is "screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release". The film premiered at the 2007 Hoboken International Film Festival..
 * I fail to see how that is notable (regardless of the fact it isn't close to being part of the criteria within WP:MOVIE). In any case I'd be willing to bet that it was done as an act of marketing rather than altruism. Any producer worth his salt has to get as much bang out of the production buck as possible, even more so for a $2.5m low budget film like this one. For the money they spent on this exercise they got themselves publicity, a part filled (albeit a walk-on one), the perception of appearing to be philanthropists, then additionally, the icing on the cake was that they donated the money to charity thereby getting themselves an additional tax break on the money (I'll give evens that the money came out of the marketing budget anyway, which, of course, is also tax deductible). These are movie-makers you know, it's all about money and bugger all to do with art (it is a low budget horror movie after all). To reiterate, how is this notable? They aren't the first to do it, I rather doubt they'll be the last.--WebHamster 16:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "At least five years after" makes the requirement 2012 by my poor math skills. WebHamster 02:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Bad Faith Nomination - LOL. This is a "Bad Faith Nomination" by a user, abusing their privleges. The film was proposed for deletion simply because I wrote it. "Sasha" is merely hunting down every article I've ever written and proposing them for deletion.
 * 1. The film starred (among others) Charles Durning (For his roles on television, Durning has earned eight Emmy Award nominations. He has also received Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor nominations for The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas in 1982 and for To Be or Not to Be in 1983. He won a Golden Globe in 1990 for his supporting role in the television miniseries The Kennedys of Massachusetts.) "Other evidence of notability" (WP:MOVIE) clearly states "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."


 * Rebuttal: Strike 1 to you, this is indeed the case. --WebHamster 14:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 2. A two-word walk-on role was auctioned for $11,000 at a Steven Spielberg/Jon Voight charity event — a sum significantly greater than paid for any other auctioned roles, including those in films like BABY GENIUSES 3 and the hit TV shows SCRUBS and MEDIUM.


 * Rebuttal: Strike 1 to the nomination. This has no relevance based on WP:MOVIE and is just a marketing gimmick. --WebHamster 14:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 3. It was the opening film of a major film festival (June 01, 2007)


 * Rebuttal: Strike 2 to the nomination. This has no relevance based on WP:MOVIE. --WebHamster 14:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 4. Three months after it's film festival debut, it's still being talked about in Fangoria - the #1 horror movie magazine. (http://www.fangoria.com/news_article.php?id=4841)


 * Rebuttal: Strike 3 to the nomination. This has no relevance based on WP:MOVIE. --WebHamster 14:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 5. {note} The five-year requirement is one criteria for establishing "historical notability". Clearly, there are hundreds of movies listed on wikipedia that are less than 5 yrs old. KennethStein 03:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Rebuttal: Strike 4 to the nomination. --WebHamster 14:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Check your facts before you accuse. I didn't nominate it.    Sasha Callahan   05:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I nominated the article, I don't know you from Adam and I wish I was 16 again (well maybe not!) WebHamster 09:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per User:Dbromage spazure  (contribs) (review) 06:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, easily if what Dbromage says is true, it does indeed meet WP:MOVIE, and should be kept. G iggy\Talk 06:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, the two stars are notable. Corvus cornix 17:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Corvus cornix. -- DS1953 talk 19:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep per above. --Agamemnon2 21:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep It just meets WP:MOVIE.--JForget 23:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Even if, for the sake of argument, the film doesn't meet the criteria of WP:MOVIE, that is just a guideline, and shouldn't over-ride common sense. The five points laid out by KennethStein are compelling. And, so far, the nominator hasn't chosen give them a meaningful, substantive reply.  If he or she has one, I think they really owe it to the rest of us to make the effort to write it down.  Cheers!  Geo Swan 16:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * KEEP - Per most reasons above. Especially agree with Geo Swan, Corvus cornix, and KennethStein. --BaldDee 15:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The closing is advised to consider this when making his decision.  New England  Review Me!/ Go Red Sox! 12:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete due to user disrupting the AFD. Will (talk) 20:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep per Ken. The star of the movie is definitely notable. Smashville 14:39, 31 August 2007 (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.