Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Matchmaker (2018 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 no consensus. Keep has the numerical majority, but the arguments offered for it don't seem especially convincing even after two relists, so I'm going to split the difference on this one. RL0919 (talk) 05:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

The Matchmaker (2018 film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Was deprodded with a rather lengthy rationale (which actually doesn't have a basis in WP guidelines), but no improvements. Winner of some minor awards, but meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NFILM.  Onel 5969  TT me 23:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas3   (talk) 04:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a bit disingenuous to ask for edits when the critique is that the subject is a priori not notable. My rationale was this (lengthy or not, it is my rationale and should be considered): "I think you are missing the fact that this is a short film - short film are not generally commercially released, their importance is inherently determined by 1. the festival circuit, 2. awards, 3. the cast and creators. This film has a highly notable cast, won awards, and has notable screenwriter and director, and would/should be listed in their respective filmographies." Um, less than two lines, not so lengthy after all... So let me then go on a bit: Notability guidelines are guidelines, not congressional legislation to be interpreted by the supreme court. There is no claim that the guidelines are exhaustive. They give some firm criteria for inclusion, but no firm criteria for exclusion. A film that won awards, was widely selected by popular film festivals, was made by notable filmmakers, and acted in by notable cast is IMO notable, and if there is any room for doubt it should be decided on in favor of inclusion. It isn't a homemade film or student film or some other negligible work, and moreover, it is very likely that such a unique film on romantic relationships among the elderly will be screened and re-screened over the years, and studied and included in academic research. TMagen (talk) 07:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete There are other ways that notability could be established for a short film - per WP:GNG, if independent reliable publications had written decent reviews of the film, it would certainly be notable. I'm not sure about some of the author's other arguments for notability. Certainly, notability is not inherited - it doesn't matter whether the cast and creators are notable. I don't know how would determine notability from the festival circuit - unless the argument is that every short film screened at a notable film festival is automatically notable, which would also seem to be covered by WP:NINI. That leaves the question of awards - if independent media picked up and reported on the film winning the awards, I'd agree that it made them notable, but I'm not seeing that. I've come down on delete, but could be swayed if anyone can dig up either a couple of proper reviews of the film, or significant coverage of it winning the awards - I looked, but didn't see anything. Girth Summit  (blether)  08:05, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to add as an afterthought that TMagen's point about the film being studied and included in academic research would certainly make it notable - as soon as independent sources are written about it, it will pass GNG - but that doesn't appear to have happened yet from what I can see. Girth Summit  (blether)  08:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. I had to look up the reference to notability being inherited, since I didn't read the justification that way... And it turns out I was probably right, because this was not the argument. The justification, as I see it, is that ALL the makers (writer, director, main cast and others) are notable (not just notable - famous, some described as legendary), making the film one that stands out, not that "if the poet is notable any poem she writes is notable". Also pointing out that the caution linked to in the argument confirms that this is not a content guideline. Similarly, the film festival justification has nothing to do with inheriting from the festival's notability, but rather pointing out that it is an official selection at a rather large number of festivals. That is a testament to notability for a short film. These are not festivals at which directors pay to screen, but rather in which they compete to get selected.


 * In addition, there are independent sources about this film. No, they aren't the New York Times, but then, that isn't required. I'm sure there are more:
 * TV Writer Sy Rosen talks about his short film 'The Matchmaker'
 * Comedy short-film premiers in Renton mobile home park
 * Alliance of Women Directors
 * Age Friendly Discussion Groups
 * Television morning show
 * Sy Rosen Is Coming to Town
 * Plus many of the reviews in the film festival context are independent reviews, not just the distributor's blurb. I also agree with TMagen's point about notability guidelines being very clear that they are not comprehensive regarding inclusion, and that the guidelines give examples, and an article can be notable for additional reasons. I think that when a film has this much going for it, it does not fall into any categories of "What Wikipedia is not", and is supported by references, there needs to be a strong reason to delete it, and there isn't one here. Tempest 88 (talk) 12:12, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry - I'm not convinced on the strength of those sources - they look like part of the publicity drive for the film.
 * TV Writer Sy Rosen talks about his short film 'The Matchmaker' - this is an interview with the film's writer - a primary source, and very much part of him 'doing the rounds' and publicising his work.
 * Comedy short-film premiers in Renton mobile home park This is a report in the local press about a visit by the film's writer, with accompanying screening of the film, to a retirement home. It scarcely mentions the film itself, it's about the visit of a famous person to a local retirement home. Not significant coverage - not really coverage at all.
 * Alliance of Women Directors This is literally a directory listing for film's director. Not significant, not independent.
 * Age Friendly Discussion Groups A local free newspaper for the over 55s reporting on its own award. Not that the film won the award - just that there will be a free screening of the film at the awards ceremony. Note - the film's writer also writes a column for this newspaper. Not significant coverage of the film, plus not independent due to the writer's association with the paper.
 * Television morning show Local TV station interviews film's writer. Primary source, same as the first one.
 * Sy Rosen Is Coming to Town Local newspaper reports on visit of film's writer (who writes a column for the paper) to the town, including interview with writer and a few paragraphs puffing the film. Not independent, primary.
 * If any actually independent, secondary sources can be found writing giving this film significant coverage, I genuinely would be willing to change my opinion - I've got no axe to grind against this film. All that I can find, and that has been presented so far, is coverage in very minor local press about the publicity drive for the film - no-one seems even to have written a proper review of it. (I don't consider a blurb connected to the showing times at a film festival to be a proper review - they're selling tickets, so not independent.) I don't need it to be the NYT or LAT, but it has to be actual coverage of the film, written in a paper that isn't associated with the writer of the film, or by a festival which is selling tickets to see it.
 * At the end of the day, we don't really decide what's notable - independent sources do that, and we follow them. If independent sources haven't written about this, we shouldn't be deciding off our own backs that it's notable, and using a bunch of primary/dependent sources to write an article. Girth Summit  (blether)  17:57, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep: OK Tempest, you won me over! - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 04:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with Tempest. We should keep this article. KingSkyLord (talk) 18:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment This has been open for a while now, and while I recognise that the nom and I are in a minority here, I just want to point out FWIW that there haven't yet been any actual policy-based arguments in favour of keeping this article, or any independent secondary refs identified that give it significant coverage. I just had another look to see if I could find any that would allow me to change my vote, but I'm still not seeing them. Girth Summit  (blether)  21:47, 6 August 2019 (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.