Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebelle


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 17:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Rebelle

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NF. Not only hasn't been commercially released, it apparently hasn't even been seen yet (may not even be finished; per IMDb), as its first appearance is scheduled to be a film festival. This per one single source, a press release (from the festival); no other evidence of notability. Google shows me no reviews, no awards, no wide distribution. All of its actors and even its director are apperantly so lacking in notability themselves that they rate only redlinks on WP. The author hints that I should try Google, but doesn't reveal what one should Google for to get better results, and hasn't provided any further proof of notability themselves. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This film has been selected to compete for the Golden Bear at the Berlin Film Festival, one of the big three film festivals in the calendar. Of course it hasn't been "commercially released" - as it will premire at the festival! Nominator claims that IMDB hasn't got the film as completed, seemingly unaware that IMDB is essentially a Wiki, which relies on volunteers to update the data.  Lugnuts  (talk) 09:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Passes WP:NF and WP:GNG. With respects to the nominator, "commercial release" does not neccessarily equate to notability and conversely, a lack of "commercial release" does not neccessarily equate to non-notability. Any article not using available sources is a call for improvement, not deletion, as topic notability is dependent upon sources being available, and NOT upon such sources being used in an article. What we do have is a completed film which is and has been receiving coverage in multiple sources, and one set for its debut in less than a month. Sources exist for this topic... THAT's how we determine notability and improvability. The nominator's other worries are based upon non-mandated "attributes" that are set to encourage searches for sources, and NOT upon applicable guideline or policy. And with respects to the nominator's google-foo... sources were easily available to meet WP:GNG... and had he looked beyond the unreliable source upon which he based his erroneous argument that this completed film was not yet completed, he might not have nominated this in the first place.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Schmidt. -- Joaquin008  ( talk ) 17:13, 24 January 2012 (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.