Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodstock Revisited


 * 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 without prejudice against moving or merging should boldness or local consensus so decree. Skomorokh 06:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Woodstock Revisited

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. Of the six references provided, two are trivial mentions, and the rest do not mention this film at all. No additional reliable, third-party, published sources supporting notability cited or found. Single Gnews hit which is a trivial mention. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Tim Song (talk) 05:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- Tim Song (talk) 06:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: This movie is not even on imdb? That strikes me as odd that it wouldn't be up there, as imdb generally has tons more films covered than wikipedia does.  The NY Times ref just makes a passing reference to the film via a quote from the director.  There is also a book out there with the same name (by Susan Reynolds).  So far I'm having trouble finding proof of notability. --Milowent (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Move to the director The NYT ref is enough to keep it in some form. That they interviewed the director so extensively shows his notability. (So, move the article to him, since  there is another film also.) and merge the information from Woodstock Can't Get There From Here. Then, if it does take off, we can expand them again.   DGG ( talk ) 00:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I Agree with DGG. --Milowent (talk) 14:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep... or merge to filmmaker at the very least. IMDB is not the compendium of all films ever made... specially newly released documetaries. I am satisfied that the current souces provide just enough enough notability for this documentary record of an historic event to allow the article to stay and be further improved. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The dude has no page. The link goes to a disambiguation page. Joe Chill (talk) 01:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - legitimate, well-written and sourced page for an existing film. Why delete it?  --AStanhope (talk) 03:40, 14 September 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.