Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mandrake Root


 * 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. Nomination withdrawn; no delete votes. (non-admin closure) NW ( Talk ) 00:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The Mandrake Root

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

This article seems to fail Wikipedia standards on films. It lacks any substantial independent coverage such as I can find, and appears to be an independent film. Many sources that are listed deal with unrelated films or stories (possibly including other productions concerning Machiavelli's play). Simply put, this appears to be a non-notable independent film. Withdrawn. The crash improvements have satisfied me. Tyrenon (talk) 08:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge If it's not independently notable why not merge it to the play it's based on? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * STRONG Keep Even a modestly prudent set of search parameters per WP:AFTER finds the subject covered in depth in reliable sources, meeting WP:GNG and WP:NF. Improvements have been made to show 2008 award nominations and notability for the HD remake of the 1518 Niccolò Machiavelli play. And by the way... the European Drama Network is not exactly an independent filmmaker... specially if they can buck the BBC at the awards tables. Simply put, it's time for some "google-fu" classes.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment to nominator. "Articles" do not have to meet notability requirements&mdash;subjects do. Editors who want to demonstrate that the subjects of articles do meet them are prudent to provide evidence of notability, but their failure to do so is as much your problem as theirs. See WP:SEP. (Note I am not opining on whether the subject of this article meets the notability guidelines&mdash;ChildofMidnight's suggestion is certainly reasonable if no independent notability of the film can be established.) Bongo  matic  08:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - References and mention of award nomination appear to establish enough notability. I don't understand why this was even nominated for deletion. Lady  of  Shalott  17:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No doubt the nominator used different search terms and did not find those first 3 significant in-depth reliable source articles nor the award nomination in his WP:BEFORE.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 17:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The award is regional. The coverage is regional. The "movie"'s release, by a non-notable start up, was limited to the internet. But you can beat up on the nom if it makes you kiddos feel good. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not beating up the nom, as his nomination was surely made in the best of good faith. However, the concerns he listed have all been properly addressed. His assertions:
 * "article seems to fail Wikipedia standards on films"
 * "lacks any substantial independent coverage such as I can find
 * "appears to be an independent film"
 * "sources that are listed deal with unrelated films or stories"
 * "appears to be a non-notable independent film"
 * Taking these assertions in order...
 * WP:NF states first and foremost that a film must meet WP:GNG (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.). The topic of the article meets this criteria.
 * The nomiator states the he could not find substantial coverage. He couldn't. I could. I added some. There's more. Want to add them? All help is welcome now that the AfD has forced a rush to improve the article.
 * He states that it "seems" to be an independent film. So what? There is no guideline or policy that states that independent films cannot be notable, so I do not understand why this was even stated.
 * Repeats the second assertion but in different words. Fine, the sources such as he could find dealt with unrelated subjects. His search was perhaps lacking? What one finds depends entirly on how well one looks. Multiple in-depth sources exist and with the most cursory of WP:AFTER, I found them. So I added a few.
 * Repeats the first and third assertions... already refuted. The topic meets WP:N (worthy of notice), WP:GNG (significant coverage in independent reliable sources), and WP:NF (should satisfy the general notability guideline.), and it being "independent" matters not one iota to its notability.
 * The nomination required refutation. I see the topic as meeting guideline's criteria for inclusion. I am not here to then redefine guideline to make it say something that it does not. Further, I read the sources... and the film had theatrical and festival releases... prior to its DVD release and prior to its being made available through download. As has been determined at other AfD's, regional notability is still notability... whether for a few hundred thousand of for 300 million. RS is RS. Coverage is coverage. In-depth is in-depth.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I did a search. The problem with the search was two-fold: First, there had been previous films; second, the play itself (of the same name) is quite notable as it was by Machiavelli.  Thus there was clutter, and what little I found on this particular production didn't indicate notability.  As to being an independent film, that was unintentional straw-manning.  What I should have said is that it did not appear to have any production company of note nor any distributor of note, which would give lie to notability as well.  Some independent films (as well as those by smaller companies) do end up as notable, but at the same time a lack of distribution would be a substantial impediment to notability.Tyrenon (talk) 06:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Understood, and please no offense was intended, as I believe your nomination was made in the fullest of good faith. However, once made, the concerns must be addressed. I dig deep as possible when sourcing articles, trying all sorts of varying parameters. And yes, my own search was hampered by the name and its original Machivelli play... but I dug through the grift to find the gold. If I hadn't found the gold, I would have opined a delte right alongside you. I take a small bit of pride in breathing life into articles lying on the gurney waiting for the last rites. Feels pretty good, actally. I appreciate the withdrawal. It shows class. Happy editing,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per sourcing and clean-up. This is exactly the dispassionate and boring (sorry MichaelQSchmidt) kind of stubby we want for films with room to expand but squeezing away the nonsense these articles often attract. -- Banj e  b oi   09:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The media coverage seems to meet the requirements for notability.  D r e a m Focus  18:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, plenty of sources. Granite thump (talk) 19:17, 8 June 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.