Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Collective (2009 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. Consensus is that Michael Q. Schmidt's improvements are enough to establish notability. Thanks Michael! Eluchil404 (talk) 03:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The Collective (2008 film)

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

Unreleased movie. Not surprisingly, not yet notable. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete This is definately not a "Coming Attractions" website Kale Weathers (talk) 14:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —PC78 (talk) 14:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I was wondering how an upcoming movie could be "award-winning". a little   insignificant  15:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete as blatantly obvious self-promotion of a non-notable film. Created by the film's director about the film he made with his wife, with straight copy/paste of their promo material and some spam links. No significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Fails WP:NF and WP:N. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 15:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete IMDB isn't exactly the most reputable source, but it says this is a 2008 film, not only can I not find other good sources but there seems to be some conflicting/contradictory evidence. That, combined with this page being used for promotion, makes me want to delete it ASAP.  Cazort (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Update, Schmidt's sources have convinced me that this is worth keeping. Apologies for my hasty search...I did not realize there were more sources out there.  Cazort (talk) 16:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a lot of digging. Thanks for your input.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 16:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete: Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Iowateen (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Unreleased? Guideline for WP:NF does not demand a theatrical release and wide distribution though such is preferred. Due practice of WP:AFTER show that the film has indeed been released and is definitely not WP:CRYSTAL. A very cursory search forund that it was seen at the Brooklyn International Film Festival, Vail Film Festival, The Independent Feature Film Market, Screamfest Horror Film Festival, Indie Spirit Film festival. Further, a diligent search shows it tweaks the WP:GNG: Off Off Off and Gothamist, with acknowledgements of its release in such as Kansas City Star] and Denver Post]. Crystal? Unreleased? With respects, might it not have been better to have actually looked before opining?   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The movie's director appears to believe otherwise, even after some of those screenings. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The author not understanding MOS or how to seperate himself from COI are reasons for us to improve an article if it can be done, not delete it. I will not presume to know why the author made the error of date in the article name, and can in good faith suppose it underscores his inexperience as a wiki editor. But since I have moved the article to the correct name and addressed it having a 2008 release and coverage per GNG, it becomes properly and encyclopedically worthy of wiki. In keep opinion, I was commenting on claims of NFF and CRYSTAL, and the fact that a search easily found the correct release date... which facts called sourcing and a move... not a deletion. I was not commenting on its author. His earlier version might call it 2009, but what has been easily verified, now that the article is ours, is 2008. How about we move on and further expand and improve a now properly NPOV wikipedia article. Thank you.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q.
 * Film festival releases alone are not notable. It has not actually received any SIGNIFICANT coverage (which does not include just saying it was at a festival), nor significant reviews. It fails both WP:NF and WP:N. Also, for future note, it is generally not good to move an article during an AfD, just note it should be moved if kept. Also, the author did originally have it listed as 2008, then it was speedied so he recreated under a new title, showing a fairly good understanding of how to try to avoid anyone noticing he did it. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 22:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. That would depend on the festival... as being screened at Sundance or Tribeca or Cannes might actually add toward notability when a lesser festival might not. However, no claim of notability through the festivals is being made, and as stated above, the festivals were only offered per WP:AFTER to confirm that it has indeed been screened... multiple times... to counter the erroneous but good faith claim by the nom that the film was unreleased, and that of editors who opined delete as WP:CRYSTAL, when it was not crystal.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NF is the general film notability guideline, not the future film one (which is only a small component and is WP:NFF). -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 04:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, NFF does not apply. Reading the nomination with raised eyebrows is what sparked my initial speedy keep. And naturally, NF (not written with new films in mind) is subordinate to N and GNG, which this film passes, having coverage in reliable sources and having won critical recognition for its genre. I was WP:BOLD and moved the article to its correct year in order to halt confusions, as its not "unreleased", not "coming attractions", and not "upcoming", and it being given the wrong year in conflict with sources sparked some confusion in early opinions. The author's original article must have been as bad as this one was originally. He could benefit from lessons on how to write a properly sourced article or how to use a sandbox for constrction. However, it belongs now to wiki.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * But WP:NF needs notability. 22:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Vote changed to Delete Week Keep: Passes WP:NF well enough for an independent film. Iowateen (talk) 10:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to see if I can find a new source or more. So far there is two with significant coverage thanks to Schmidt. Iowateen (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Multiple awards at multiple festivals (and no, not every film wins an Academy Award). Not bad for an "unreleased" film.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * How notable are those festivals though? I could start a film festival today and give out awards to any film I felt like (sorry, playing Devil's advocate here... ;-) )  Lugnuts  (talk) 06:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A point I had considered myself when I read WP:NF specifically stating "standards have not yet been established to define a major award". Since we're not talking about local bake sale award, I suppose we might be allowed to consider an award "in context" to what is being awarded. However, since I don't wish to turn this into a debate over what constitutes a major award, I can comfortable fall back on WP:NF sharing "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". And whether this coverage is in reviews of the film or in its winning recognition (even if minor), I look at Broklyn Daily Eagle, Off Off Off, Gothamist, Quiet Earth, and the slightly more than trivial Real Vail, The Brooklyn Paper and Kansas City Star.. and see that guideline has been satisfied... specially for a small time independent film.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Schmidt's new sources, after reading them in depth, show significant coverage, and I think the sources are reliable and independent of the topic. This solidly meets WP:N in my opinion.  Apologies for the hastiness of my original search.  I changed my recommendation above.  Thanks!  Cazort (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think that its notability has been demonstrated by the references that have been found for it.-- Noosentaal ·talk· 11:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cazort FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, promotion of unreleased film. Stifle (talk) 11:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't entirely unreleased - it has been screened at film festivals. -- Noosentaal ·talk· 11:32, 19 May 2009 (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.