Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wrestled


 * 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   delete.  Sandstein  08:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Wrestled

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

The notability guidelines for films do not seem to be satisfied:

Bongo matic  14:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.
 * No suggestion of such. While there is a quotation from an NBC critic, there is no evidence that it is from a full length review (a Google search for the text doesn't generate any hits other than on the filmmaker's website).
 * 1) The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:
 * 2) *Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.
 * No suggestion of such
 * 1) *The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.
 * No suggestion of such
 * 1) *The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.
 * No suggestion of such
 * 1) *The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.
 * No suggestion of such
 * 1) The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.
 * No suggestion of such
 * 1) The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.
 * No suggestion of such
 * 1) The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.
 * No suggestion of such
 * Deletion. Somehow you mentioned to forget about the criterion concerning awards, but this film didn't win those either. - Mgm|(talk) 19:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that's item (3) above. Bongo  matic  23:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 06:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, good nom. Ryan 4314   (talk) 07:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per coverage in MULTIPLE independent reliable sources and awards won.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there even one instance of "significant" coverage? Is any of the awards "major"? Are they even documented? The inthecanfilm link provided doesn't actually say which (minor, festival) awards it actually received, so it is not verifiable. Bongo  matic  23:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * chifcpug.org: "WRESTLED, which he edited and sound designed, was picked up by IFC (Independent Film Channel) for the 2006 season. The film, shot on 16mm B&W, gained an official selection in the Slamdunk Film Festival in Park City, Utah, and won the “Best Dramatic Short Film” award from the Orion Film Festival in Texas."  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The sources provided in the article are are considered "significant" in that they are more-than-trivial. In The Can Films states "Wrestled was selected to take part in the Apple computer series Made on a Mac, hosted by Roger Ebert, profiling filmmakers who are using the Final Cut Pro software to produce new and innovative work. The film earned critical praise, resulting in interviews with Donlon on NBC and in Relevant Magazine." That is NOT a trivial mention. Reel Chicago states "The film marks the third time Donlon and Ordower have worked together. All three films have been directed by Donlon with Ordower serving as editor and sound designer.  The first of these films, 'Wrestled,' was picked up by the Independent Film Channel.  Ordower took on producing duties with the second film, 'A Series of Small Things', which was accepted into the Palm Springs International Film Festival. According to Ordower, each film has been an educational experience and has helped the pair take on progressively greater challenges.  While 'Wrestled' was shot in two days on black and white film, 'The Man in the Silo' is being shot on Super 16mm color film and makes heavy use of Steadicam and Dolly shots." That mention is not trivial. The guidelines do not mandate that the coverage must be exclusive to the subject, only that it not be trivial. Further, the film is available through the DC Library. Flickerings writes ""Wrestled" is Phil’s first film as a filmmaker. Previous directing and writing experience was for the stage with Chicago’s critically acclaimed Gilead Theater Company, which Phil led and co-founded. Before this film Phil worked in front of the camera as an actor in various indie films, commercials and TV shows including 'Friends' and 'Early Edition'. Phil left Chicago a year ago with his wife and moved to Los Angeles because of representation with the William Morris Agency and management with Foundation. He has tested for two network pilots for NBC and ABC, and is currently working on a feature version of 'Wrestled.'" as a non-trivial report of film and filmmaker.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: lack of verifiable 3rd party sources, per WP:NF. JamesBurns (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm curious about which of the independent 3rd party refs you were unable to verify? inthecanfilm.com? Reel Chicago? IFC.com? Screen Magazine? ManInTheSilo.net? Austin Film? These ALL seem to meet the requirements of WP:GNG, since that is the very first general proncipal of WP:NF... specially in that they are more-than-trivial.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There needs to be significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
 * reelchicago:
 * http://www.reelchicago.com/archive.cfm?storyID=668. Passing mention only.
 * Irrelevent misdirection, as the mention not used to source article.
 * http://www.reelchicago.com/archive.cfm?storyID=539. Passing mention only.
 * Irrelevent misdirection, as the mention not used to source article.
 * http://www.reelchicago.com/archive.cfm?storyID=439. Passing mention only.
 * Irrelevent misdirection, as the mention not used to source article.
 * http://www.reelchicago.com/archive.cfm?storyID=916. Passing mention only.
 * Irrelevent misdirection, as the mention not used to source article.
 * http://www.reelchicago.com/archive.cfm?storyID=702. Passing mention only.
 * Irrelevent misdirection, as the mention not used to source article.
 * maininthesilo: http://www.maninthesilo.net/phildonlon.php. Not independent of subject.
 * Oops... not independent. However, is not contentious and is allowed per guideline.
 * austingfilm.org: http://www.austinfilm.org/ifc_short_film_showcase_for_december_time_warner_cable_774. Schedule information only.
 * Used only to VERIFY the film bring seen on the Independent Film Channel
 * screenmag.tv: http://www.screenmag.tv/feature.aspx?fid=878. Not sigificant coverage.
 * False. The covereage is not in depth, but is most definitely significant as it is MORE THAN TRIVIAL.
 * ifc.com: http://www.ifc.com/episodes/SH000202650000/IFC-Short-Film-Showcase. Schedule information only.
 * Used only to VERIFY the film bring seen on the Independent Film Channel
 * None qualifies. Bongo  matic  02:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * They actually DO qualify under policy WP:V and guideline WP:RS: "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made", as the guidelines allow that a source may be considered in context with what is being asserted.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, some of the qualify under those guidelines, which get the article 2/3 of the way to notability, which requires verifiability, reliability and "significant coverage". None of them is actually "significant coverage", and none of them verifies the awards (they refer only, with no names), so they don't get you the whole way there. Bongo  matic  03:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I surrender, as Wikipedia is riunning out of paper and I cannot see the point in even trying to improve articles. The nom may now move unopposed through Wikipedia to weed out the thousands and thousands of lessor articles that do not meet a narrow interpretation of policy and guideline. I am glad he has the time, as all I had time for was giving to Wiki and not taking away. I will now revert my improvements to the article as having been pointless.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:56, 18 December 2008 (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.