Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pushed to the Limit


 * 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   no consensus. No consensus AfDs appear to have pushed themselves to the limit on May 12th. One two three... 15:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Pushed to the Limit

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

Completely unremarkable movie. Contested prod. Does not meet WP:NOTABILITY. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Yea, may the angels come down and smite this article, and may it perish in the fires of hell." Keep Wow, didn't catch that. Good job Schmidt! ( damn, and it was such a good line, too... ) a little   insignificant  15:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the "Keep". I like to dig a bit deeper into these things when time allows. Sometimes I hit gold. Sometimes I come up empty. And save that line... it's terrific and Wiki affords plenty of opportunities to share it.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 17:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Good job- the some of the wiki's best articles wouldn't still be here today if someone hadn't dug deeper into the case. And yes, I'll save the line. a little  insignificant  13:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Unremarkable as in fails to meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Sorry if that wasn't clear from the nomination. I'll fix it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, gotcha. Sorry about the confusion, I should have looked into it. a little   insignificant
 * Comment I find four sources, all non-public access and with what looks like fairly minimal coverage, but in reputable sources: . This strikes me as a borderline case to me, in terms of notability, and I don't really have a recommendation, but I thought I'd throw the sources out there.  Cazort (talk) 15:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —PC78 (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * STRONG Keep Per proper WP:AFTER, I also found those 4 news sources as did User:Cazort, one can either pay-per-view (no) or visit the microfische archives at a decent public library (yes), so for me it seemed to tickle the GNG. Then when I was able to add two nice in-depth reviews of the film, it pushed it over the top for me. However, the gold pot at the end of the rainbow was that the film was screened at the 2006 Action On Film International Film Festival 14 years after its initial release and the star actually received some recognition for her work in her film, the screening of which specifically meets WP:NF in that "The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release. All learned through practice of diligent WP:AFTER, and consideration of WP:ATD, WP:POTENTIAL and WP:PRESERVE.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 10:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment While I'm going to see if I can dig up some better references, it at the moment I think that strong keep might be a tad much - of the refs only one, the TV Guide entry, actually speaks to notability. The other indepth review is of questionable reliability, and the rest of the sources are of no real note - the NY Times is, in fact, just a repeat of the other (and acknowledges it). Still, you're right that the pay-per-views look ok, as is the festival, so I'll chase the other reviews up and see where we sit. - Bilby (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I was kinda surprised myself that it had been screened at a festival 14 years after its initial release. Sometimes even a crap film will make its way back. Of course, the AOF film festival did not exist in 91/92.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 16:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The sources that Cazort found, admittedly without having read the full text, do not appear to be primarily about the movie. They might be useful if someone decides to recreate a non-copyvio article about Mimi Lesseos. I appreciate the diligent work you do on movie articles, but, with all due respect, arguing that this is a historically notable film based on a screening at a niche festival and a scathing review in TV Guide seems somewhat misplaced. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have not read the sources, then with respects, any opinion about what they "might" contain is meaningless. And even were they to not be exclusive, as long as they are more-than-trivial, they are emminently satisfactory per guideline. And guideline NEVER says a review must be positive and full of praise, so a "scathing" TV Guide review of a crappy film is absolutely wonderful. I would expect and hope for nothing less. And to argue that a crappy film cannot meet historical inclusion criteria of guideline sounds like you are arguing that guideline is incorrect. It specifically states, with no equivocation "The film was given a commercial re-release, 'or screened in a festival', at least five years after initial release". Guideline does not demand that the festival be Cannes, nor that a commercial re-release be nationwide. Further, and even though no one has yet written its article, the film festival in question has itself been amply covered in reliable sources. Niche films, good ones or bad ones, will be screened at niche festivals. Guideline does not demand otherwise. The 17-year-old film has met guideline requirement for notability with its sourced assertion of screening more than five years after its release. You may not think that gives it notability, but that opinion runs contrary to what guideline explicitly states. You are welcome to change the guideline if you disagree, but the film meets that specific criteria for inclusion. And thank you for noting my diligent work in movie articles, as diligence is a good thing and due diligence per WP:AFTER allowed the discovery of these informations.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 16:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My point was simply that you appear to be arguing that this movie meets WP:NF by asserting that qualifies as a historically significant film per criterion 2 of the guideline. I doubt very much that you believe that it is, in any sense, historically significant, but I may be wrong about that. Your work to improve movie-related articles is commendable - do you really want to keep this article by twisting the WP:NF guidelines so far out of shape? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC) I fixed the typo of WP:MF for WP:NF Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I use the same guidelines as do you. That someone dusted this stinker off and actually screened it at a festival 14 years after initial release allows it as historical per guideline, crap though it may be. Interesting note that at that screening, Mimi's work in and as actress/director/action hero of her film actually received recognition, so others have a higher opinion of it than do I. I might think the film is a turkey, but guideline is elegantly guideline, and requires no "twisting".  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You are correct that it meets the test. I don't believe the intention of including the "historically significant" criterion was to allow articles on movies like this one. (That's not a statement on whether "bad" movies can be historically significant, because I'm sure they can, just not in this case.) I think you do yourself a disservice by using a literal reading of a guideline to garner a keep here, but that is your choice. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete Being mentioned once in a film magazine and being shown on a projector in someone's garden is only permissable if Wikipedia has entriels about all the non-notable peers of Dickens and Hardy the duo The Iron Rod (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * With respects, the Action On Film Festival is not a screening in someone's garden and TV Guide is not "some film magazine". Interesting comment though. Thank you.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * With yet greater respects, "In January 2009, the magazine cut several networks from the grid listings, including DIY Network and MTV, citing "space concerns". - 1 It is a listings magazine! This suggests that also DIY Network films are notable - if they are shown in a notable film festival, such as the Action On Film International Festival, which despite claims to be "one of these most progressive film festivals on the scene today.", I'm certainly not 100% certain the festival itself is notable enough to be on Wikipedia, let alone a terrible wrestling movie that happened to be shown there once. The Iron Rod (talk) 22:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * For their expertise and editorial oversite, TV Guide is accepted as a reliable source for television-related news, celebrity interviews, and film reviews... not for their programming listings. Their review of the film was in-depth and not a trival list mention. That they cut several networks from their grid listings for "space concerns" in January 2009 has nothing to do with an in-depth review from January 2008. And again and with respects, the Action On Film Festival is not a "screening in someone's garden" as you stated. If you feel the festival is not worth being considered a festival by Wikipedia, despite its own coverage in reliable sources, that is up to individual editors to determine. Thank you.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Of the four pay-per-view sources, one was definitely trivial, one probably was, and two were the same article. However, those two weren't trivial, and when combined with the festival showing, coverage in Black Belt magazine, and the TV Guide review, it seems that we have enough to establish notability to Wikipedia's standards, and to write a bit more than the usual plot + reception. So I'm happy enough to keep the article. - Bilby (talk) 10:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nice rescue from MichaelQSchmidt. Fences and windows (talk) 23:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable film. Stifle (talk) 13:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - an excellent job identifying evidence of notability. Athanasius • Quicumque vult  13:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

-- References --


 * 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.