Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Last Hurrah (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The result was withdrawn for now, still a somewhat borderline notability case. We'll see if any more sources appear over time, then I will consider relisting it again.--Otterathome (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The Last Hurrah (2009 film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  Cliff  Smith 18:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  Cliff  Smith 18:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be non-notable film. Fails WP:GNG+WP:MOVIE. Only source I was able to find was a trivial mention here. Otterathome (talk) 14:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per meeting WP:NF. To the nominator... other eyes.. other google foo. Your "mention" and two minutes of looking quickly led to a full review at DVD Verdict and article in Weho News Campus Circle as well as in-deph reviews at other sites, as well as learning it received SIX Maverick Movie Award nominations... 'Best Director', 'Best Screenplay', 'Best Supporting Actor', two 'Best Supporting Actress', AND 'Best Soundtrack'.  What else was missed when declaring this improvable topic as non-notable?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you say which criteria of WP:MF it meets? I don't see it. Can you also provide some evidence of notability of these 'maverick' awards?--Otterathome (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:MF?... Mirrors and forks?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NF tells us ""If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." The quickly found in-depth coverage of the topic in the independent secondary sources DVD Verdict, WeHo News, and Campus Circle meet the requisite for WP:SIGCOV. This is not Star Wars after all, and we do not demand nor expect that a minor independent film have that same world-wide coverage, just so long as we have enough. The Dances With Films, SoCal Film Festival, and Maverick Movie Awards do not have to themselves establish a notability. But as we do not limit article content to only the "most important" facts in our increasing a reader's understanding of a topic, we may include whatever verifiable information has direct bearing on the topic... and these awards are worth inclusion in the article as "recognition". This article will be kept or not, snow or not, dependent upon whether or not consensus finds the topic just notable enough for further improvement over time and with regular editing. Immediatism is not a policy.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * does it meet any of NF? The sources you provided seem to be barely notable, being only published in California, and a random reviews website. Both awards mentioned don't even have their own articles...--Otterathome (talk) 06:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:OEN. The "Other evidence of notability" listing at WP:NF is not a guideline requirement. It exists as a set of attributes, that if existing would encourage proper (and sometimes lacking) WP:BEFORE... and for the most part apply to films more than 5 years old. If WP:NF is met even barely through WP:GNG we do not use non-madated attributes in an attempt to dismiss a topic. And please... the WP:GNG does not state nor imply that sources have to be world-wide, just so long as long as the sources are secondary, independent, and reliable.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Campuscircle seems to be a university paper that the director went to, so is not independant of subject.--Otterathome (talk) 07:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Pardon, but "seems to be" is something that might be said by someone who had not researched before making the statement. Campus Circle is not a student newspaper, but was a (then-small) paper started in 1990 (22 years ago) by someone trying to pay college tuition. In 1999 (13 years ago) Campus Circle went online to widen its demographic... and made greater use of print ad campaigns, online marketing, viral marketing, online editorial, its subscriber database, and street marketing. So... an enterprising individual created a product in order to make money?  Wow. The folks at grand-daddy medias The New York Times or Washington Post might be aghast at such chutzpah.  In 2000 (12 years ago) they began networking and sharing with such The Onion and, in extending beyond California, became Campus Circle Media (needs an article). Not surprisingly, their target demographic is readers between the ages of 18 and 34.  In their growth as a news outlet, they now utilize 34 different publications (including The Onion) in 32 different markets.  Not a "university paper", they have offices on Wilshire Blvd in Los Angeles, and a full editorial staff.  Just "a university paper"?  Hardly. Local only? Nope. They are themsleves considered reliable and are widely quoted and referred to across the internet. Reliable in context to what is being sourced? Definitely. If you do not believe so, I invite you to present this thread at WP:RSN.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm still not completely convinced with the cc as a source. In the few places on WP it is mentioned, it has been rejected . describes it as a 'Non notable source, mostly paid ads' which is backed up by their own contact page . How do we know they weren't paid to do this? Your claim that is 'considered reliable and are widely quoted and referred to across the internet' is also questionable, as the links you provided seem to be referring to other Campus Circle's, not this publication itself. Most of which is talking about 'Campus Circle Tallahassee'.--Otterathome (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ahh... so some few search results give a housing development. That does not mean the 22-year-old media Camous Circle is unacceptable simply because a 2011 housing development in Tallahassee uses a similar name. Time to refine your parameters and hone your search skills (hint: you can begin by placing a "-Tallahassee" after the words "Campus Circle"). Take this discussion to WP:RSN. We are dealing with a 22 year-old news organization, one with an editorial staff and a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Meets WP:RS. And EVERY news media.. from CBS News to ABC News to Fox News to Los Angeles Times and The New York Times, supports themselves with ad revenue. Your claim that their interview of the director was paid for by the director, has absolutely no foundation. But thanks for sharing your thoughts. And by the by... THIS article was rejected because it contained 8 unreliable sources, and not because Campus Circle was number 9.   The AFD for Birnkrant 616 succeeded because of 4 poor source choices (including an "about us" link) and not because the Campus Circle review was number 5.  And your last example, an AFD that did NOT result in a delete, included one person's opinion about Campus Circle that did not convince anyone to toss the article. You'd be hard pressed to convince anyone that having ads as a revenue sources makes something unreliable.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether you're a reader, potential business partner, or someone who wants us to cover a band, we value your interest in our company. They openly offer to cover bands on request, how do you not know this can be applied to other subjects?--Otterathome (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Huh??? Contrary to your interpretation, that sentence DOES NOT say they will cover bands on request. It simply thanks folks interested in their company for whatever reason. But so what?  A media source is allowed to acknowledge and thank those interested in the that media. And anyone, anytime, anywhere, can write to any media source and suggest that a topic be covered.  A further point: we have many accepted as reliable sources for film which, on their websites, actually do tell filmmakers they might send in a screener. Again, so what?  A decision to cover a topic or not, and how and in what depth a topic is covered, is subject to editorial oversite.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep due to being trivially improvable, and actually improved already. Questionable nomination, IMHO. The nominator's "trivial mention" source (Variety), merely establishes Stokes' bona fides: his status as a commercially viable writer, and published director, that's all. --Lexein (talk) 10:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep... and worth mentioning is how easy it was to actually begin improvements using sources the nom "could" not find. I am reminded of the wisdom of WP:IMPERFECT, WP:WIP, WP:HANDLE and WP:DEADLINE.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 17:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep with no reservations. Exceeds notability standard both general and films. Thanks, Lexein, for your latest edits. DocTree (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed. His copyediting of my expansion and sourcing made it much nicer.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh, now I'm done. Look again. --Lexein (talk) 09:33, 18 July 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.