Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lazarus Effect (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The result was   Withdrawn, with the nominator backing away slowly. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The Lazarus Effect (film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails Notability (films) with only one critic, Noel Murray. The NPR piece is not critical commentary, nor is the Vanity Fair piece independent. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

--K10wnsta (talk) 08:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete does not meet WP:N for films as explained by the nom. JBsupreme  ( talk ) ✄ ✄ ✄	 07:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep While the film might not meet any of the special criteria for Notability (film), it still very easily meets the GNG, with other reviews like this, this, this, and this. Not to mention the prolific amount of news sources to be found about it that aren't reviews. Silver  seren C 07:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The Film Stage is a blog, with author Kristen Coates being a grad student. PopMatters is a webzine. supple magazine is also not a magazine, with all web content posted by 'admin'. Shockya.com doesnt look any better. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep has sufficiently wide coverage in various forms from sources to merit notability. Here's another.  Ty  08:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That piece is a promo; no critical commentary in it. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a misleading characterisation, which is properly applied to press releases, paid ads, SPS, and the like, not when an independent organisation uses editorial space. That is an endorsement by the independent organisation of the worth of the content, which the independent organisation is responsible for publishing. The introductory text on the linked page is critical commentary. This might be seen as descriptive material, but critical commentary is often descriptive.  Ty  11:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That piece has no critical commentary. None.  It doesn't even have a named author.  It only contains one sentence of descriptive text, saying that it "follows four HIV-positive Zambia residents, and how treatment has changed their lives."  The rest is about the problem, the non-profits who are helping, and then it goes on to introduce the live chat hosted by Huffington Post with Lance Bangs. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I will concede on the critical commentary. But critical commentary as such is not a requirement, only coverage, and clearly the piece is all about the film, so my main points stand.  Ty  12:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:Notability (film) lists "plot summaries without critical commentary" in its exclude list. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's taken out of context, which is: "Trivial coverage, such as newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews," plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as "Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide," "Time Out Film Guide," or the Internet Movie Database." This exceeds that level with an accompanying interview inquiring into the making and background of the film..  Ty  13:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The process a studio-produced film goes through to be completed should automatically qualify it for entry in wikipedia. If it wasn't notable, no one would be pouring money into its production.  Even though policy is exclusionary and over-reaching in this regard, I'll defer to other evidence of notability to justify my motion here:
 * The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person (Spike Jonze was executive producer)
 * Furthermore, (although he'd be the first to say it's not a valid argument), if anyone knew best what articles wikipedia was intended to include, it would be the guy who created this one.
 * (in reply to K10wnsta, as opposed to the comment directly above which was written by Weakopedia) I tagged the article with notability a while ago, as a courtesy to the creator so that they could improve it to meet our standards. The tag was later removed, yet the article wasn't improve to meet our standards.  It still doesn't meet our standards, as the film is still lacking critical commentary in reliable sources.  As a film, it is not notable. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking at the history of that article it seems that it took Jimbo a couple of trys to get it started - if anyone should know about the concepts of notability and verifiability you might think it would be the founder of the very concepts themselves. You might want to remember that people are fallible and that when the community is asked to make a decision on the deletion of an article it is not necessary to examine the 'status' of the article creator, a policy rejected by this community.


 * Keep and improve There are plenty of sources, that the article is not very good is not the fault of available sourcing. Weakopedia (talk) 09:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - per K10wnsta - the involvement of of Spike Jonze means that this film meets the notability guideline. Claritas § 09:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Spike Jonze creates lots of commercials; are they all notable? John Vandenberg (chat) 09:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The article says it's a documentary, not a commercial. The premiere at the Museum of Modern Art is another indication of notability.  Ty  11:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That doesn't answer my question. Does mere involvement by Spike Jonze, or a party at MOMA, mean the subject is notable?  MOMA doesn't mention this on their website.  Also, this campaign also includes a commercial; see the article for the two Adweek articles about the commercial. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * MoMA often fails to put things of importance and relevancy on their website...Modernist (talk) 12:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Spike Jonze and MoMA are contributory factors, when assessing the totality of relevant matters. I don't understand the relevance of "a commercial". There's no bar on that in Wikipedia, and Adweek is additional coverage that contributes to notability.  Ty  13:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- John Vandenberg (chat) 11:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.  -- John Vandenberg (chat) 11:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. –  Ty  11:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Review in The Times, shown at MoMA, HBO, Channel 4, on YouTube, piece in Vanity Fair, piece in the Huffington Post. I should only make a documentary with such notability, I'd be very pleased - if I made documentaries...Modernist (talk) 12:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The piece in Vanity Fair is not independent (see above). The piece in Huffington Post is barely a mention (see above).  The Times Online limits their criticism to one sentence: "the film — while energetic and upbeat — eschews the stylistic mischief of the rock videos that Bangs has worked on (for artists including ...) or of Jonze’s idiosyncratic movies (...)", and is mostly about the director, (RED), the campaign. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - per WP:GNG as it meets its criteria. moreno oso (talk) 13:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notable film and a nice little article. Carrite (talk) 14:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * There is a brief review of the film here in The Scotsman (also appeared here).
 * Here a review in the Portland Mercury.
 * Here another article in The Times, covering the campaign, in advance of the documentary's screening on the UK's nationwide Channel 4.
 * There is a longer review here, but I don't know whether or not the shockya.com qualifies as a RS (it is cited in a couple of dozen articles here on WP, for whatever that's worth, and this is the author of the review).
 * Here is a paragraph recommending that readers should watch the film in The Guardian.
 * There is a brief description and endorsement of the film and campaign here in the Larry King live blog on CNN.com.
 * Here are a couple more RS mentions without critical commentary: / (Channel 4), and  (both from Marie Claire),  (BBC).
 * All in all I think it is enough for a weak keep. An alternative idea might be to cover the documentary in the Product RED article; if not, it certainly should be mentioned there, or a "See also" added. -- JN 466  15:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep - In addition to finding this film to be sufficiently notable for inclusion, I am outraged (outraged! srsly!!11) by this nomination. Its ridiculous not to note in the nomination that the article was created by Jimbo Wales, and not discuss why one believes it still merits deletion in this case.  Huge discussion and drama will ensue and a total f**in waste of everyone's time will be suffered by all.  Speedy close please.--Milowent • talkblp-r  15:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Not sure how the article looked when it was nominated, but at present it contains reviews/coverage from Vanity Fair, the Times, the New York Times media blog, NPR, and the Huffington Post, which seems more than ample to meet both the film-specific and general notability guidelines. MastCell Talk 17:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * '''Keep - Exec Producer Skip Jonze = merits at least a stub entry. Cookiehead (talk) 17:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep' Clearly meets WP:GNG.  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:NF and WP:GNG. Notability asserted, notability shown.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep In my opinion, the contributions to the film from both Spike Jonze and Lance Bangs, combined with the mentions in media in the article's references are more than enough to satisfy notability requirements.  Peacock (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per the RS listed here. I've tagged it for rescue in hopes that someone will go through this AfD and make sure all the listed sources are incorporated appropriately. I note that the nom has already been helping in this regard. Jclemens (talk) 01:27, 4 August 2010 (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.