Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trans (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The result was withdrawn by nominator. although I still think the film fails notability, in light of the recent work done on the article, I'm withdrawing the nomination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niteshift36 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Trans (film)

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

Film does not appear to pass WP:NOTFILM. It was a small indie film that was never in wide release. The article makes a claim that it won a minor award at the Berlin Film Festival based on an IMDB.com link. However, the film festivals website does not list the award or film winning an award. But an article I found does mention the an award, but fails to specify which one. I suspect it is a minor award, but it is certainly not one of the festivals notable ones that they keep in their archives. A total of 24 gnews hits, althought some aren't actually about the movie. I found a few reviews, but none appear to satisfy the "full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics" part of WP:NOTFILM. Overall, it appears to be a minor film that made a stab at being notable, but came up short. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 08:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi!

I understand that the film had a very limited release, but I feel like it is significant in part because it is an early work by a director who has made other films with a much wider release (2006's "The Hawk Is Dying").

Also this film has been aired many times on the Independent Film Channel

Another reference to the award is mentioned here (at the bottom of the page)



Also (from a biography of the film's editor)

and from the director's website...

"Goldberger’s feature film directing debut, “Trans”, listed in the BEST OF 1999 and 2000 by film critics, has screened at the 1998 Toronto International Film Festival, 1999 Sundance Film Festival, 1999 Berlin International Film Festival (READERS’ JURY PRIZE for BEST FILM), 1999 New Directors/New Films series at New York City’s Museum of Modern Art, as well as various other international festivals."

Also here is a press release for the film "The Hawk is Dying" which mentions the Award.



If I need to remove the Berlin International Film Festival award, I will, but I've worked very hard on this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothyapetty (talk • contribs) 08:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The number of times it has been shown on IFC is irrelevant. And many non-notable films are screened at notable film festivals. That doesn't make them notable. WP:NOTFILM does allow for winning a major award as helping establish notability and even mentions the Berlin festival. However, an award that isn't even relevant enough to archive wouldn't seem to qualift as a "major" award. The festival does archive its major awards and this film didn't win any of those. Lastly, pitching this as a directors first effort making it notable won't fly. Grammy award winning singers make non-notable songs. And the man has only directed 2 additional films in the 11 years since this one. Not exactly setting the film world on fire. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep or Redirect. Keep as long as the claims made by the creator of the article (the Berlin award especially) are fully sourced. Otherwise, a redirect to the director's page and maybe a short paragraph on the same should be enough. McMarcoP (talk) 08:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The source is IMDB. In fact over half of the sources for the article are IMDB. The Festivals website doesn't show the film winning anything they felt was notable enough to archive. The redirect isn't a horrible suggestion. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Other than the sources I've listed above, is there any other source rather than the Berlin Film Festival's site that will be acceptable? One is from Irish Film and Television News and another is from www.pbs.com. Other than the actual Festival's site, I think these two at least are worth of being a source. Timothyapetty (talk)timothyapettyTimothyapetty (talk) Citation for award has been changed to the Irish Film and Television News link rather than the IMDB. Timothyapetty (talk) 08:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You're misunderstanding something Timothy. I don't disbelieve it won the award. But it isn't really that important. The award is a minor one that will not help establish the films notability. The award, as it turns out, is one selected by a readers panel from "Berliner Zeitung". That is FAR from being a major award. The issue here is notability, not the minor award it got from some readers of a newspaper. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I say this respectfully, but if the criteria for notoriety is that strict, then 80% of the independent film articles on WP need to be deleted. Timothyapetty (talk) 09:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Believe it or not, there are notable independent films. I just don't think this is one of them. It travelled to a number of film festivals, many notable ones. It got one nomination for a seemingly notable award (but lost) and won a minor award that the festival itself doesn't see as important enough to archive. A good criteria isn't a bad things. It prevents us from having to wade through articles written just because someone liked the film. The discussion boards at IMDB (which I see you discovered) are a better location for that. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to Julian Goldberger, albeit only in a substantially truncated form. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 09:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In light of subsequent improvements to the article, I'm changing my vote to Keep. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 00:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * SOLID Keep and send to cleanup to address waaaaaaay-overly-long plot section. Article can establish notability per the easiest of WP:BEFORE. Multiple sources exist that toss it way over the bar for WP:GNG. There's lots available for its improvement: Baltimore Sun, Deseret News, Orlando Sentinel, Associated Press, Guardian, Newsday, Film Comment, New York Daily News, San Francisco Chronicle, Chicago Tribune, Washington Times, Miami New Times, et al.  Heck... I'll likely take a stab and improving it to address issues in about 18 hours. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 09:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I did some WP:BEFORE work (which you imply I didn't do), even posting a link to one of the articles you linked in the nomination (which makes it look like you didn't bother to click on the ones in the nom). There were some Gnews hits, but I don't see GNG as being the operative standard here. WP:NOTFILM went to great effort to establish what makes a film notable instead of relying on just counting mentions from newspapers to make something notable. Some of what you posted are articles stating it was shown in film festivals. Nobody disputes that. And having the local paper tell us simply what films were shown at the local film festival (like the Guardian link) isn't compelling. Nor is the Orlando Sentinel article that savages the movie a help for notability. Does an article telling us this is "the sort of movie that makes people swear off alternative cinema forever" help establish notability? Do you even read the sources you post? Niteshift36 (talk) 09:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I implied nothing. You said you found 24 g-news hits. I never said you did not. I said it was easy BEFORE and shared my search results in greater detail than did you. I believe that no matter its current state, the article has the potential to be improved. That you do not is an opinion to which you are entitled. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 15:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I might accept that you didn't intend to imply it, but your wording does give that implication. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologize if that is how my comments seemed to you. We are obviously both here to improve the encyclopedia. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, improving WP is my goal. Even though I still believe this film isn't notable enough for inclusion, I'm still trying to help the author improve the article. If it ends up being kept, this is still good in that the article is much better sourced than it was when I nominated it. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No argument there. The cleanup that often results from AfD works to improve the project. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Nightshift36 is correct. Throwing up a bunch of legitimate-looking links that lead to nothing solid and and using all-caps "SOLID keep" and implying that the nominator didn't research it when he clearly did is deceptive and cannot possibly be in good faith.  MichaelQSchmidt, your behavior is inexcusable, I'm calling you out on it.  We have notability guidelines that express consensus and Wikipedia operates by consensus.  Change consensus if you don't like it, but flagrantly and duplicitously ignoring it is not something that can be tolerated.  This film clearly fails to achieve notability under our film guidelines at this time.  Trivial mentions don't make it notable under the general notability guideline and this circus act to try to ram some unimportant film through AFD is disgusting. Drawn Some (talk) 11:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Drawnsome, your incredibly hostile incivility in your statement is totally unacceptable. The nominator in his opening statement specifically said that he had found 24 gnews hits and he shared 3 links.  I never ever said or implied he did not. I simply wrote that it was easy BEFORE and then listed some of my own results in greater detail than did he.  I believe has the potential through cleanup and sourcing to pass WP:GNG. You do not. That difference of opinion is no reason to be rude and comfrontational. Please cease. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 15:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per Niteshift36 and Drawn Some. Fails WP:NF. Joe Chill (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: I think that the two reviews below show enough notability for an independent film. I still agree about MQS though. Joe Chill (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Then please, its time to file an WQA or ANI. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 15:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Then please, its time to file an WQA or ANI. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 15:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Funny. Too much drama. Joe Chill (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Favorable review from the Village Voice.


 * Favorable Review from The New York Times.

I'm not sure how the fact of whether or not the review is favorable has any bearing on those reviews being used to demonstrate notability. Things can be notable for being bad just as easily as they can for being good.

And with the tens of thousands of independent films made each year, I believe that any award at a major international film festival is noteworthy.

Timothyapetty (talk) 14:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Removed most IMDB citations. Timothyapetty (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Replaced all IMDB citations Timothyapetty (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep due to the amount of indepth coverage in reliable sources. Sources: SF Chronicle, Contra Costa Times, Deseret News, Chicago Tribune, Miami Herald, Washington Times, Orlando Sentinel, Newsday, Village Voice, NY Daily News, New York Times, Miami New Times,. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * F&W.....question for you: Do you feel that we even need notability standards for different topics, such as films, music rtc. if we are going to disregard them in favor of GNG all the time? Niteshift36 (talk) 23:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If we can find enough independent reliable secondary sources that discuss a topic indepth to put together a decent article, we'd better have a good reason to not have an article on that topic. In other words, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." WP:NOTFILM explicitly includes and defers to the WP:GNG. This film has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, therefore we keep the article. It is that simple. Fences  &amp;  Windows  14:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Have just gone through and performed some cleanup and corrected the format of the citations. Article is looking better. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The subject is clearly notable, as awards and non trivial mentions in reliable sources show. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 15:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not awards, one award, a minor one at that. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep some of those links, such as do show a notable review.   D r e a m Focus  19:15, 14 August 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.