Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xenogenesis (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   keep. Tone 22:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Xenogenesis (film)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Right now, this article is not establishing notability under the WP:NFILM criteria. It needs more reliable sources and outside coverage in order to be considered notable. Armbrust WrestleMania XXVII  Undertaker 19–0  15:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. As James Cameron's first film (as writer, director, and producer), notability shouldn't be too difficult to establish.Shsilver (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per sufficient (though not quite a lot of) coverage to establish notability. This shows some passing (but not minor) coverage, but a solid source is the book The Futurist: The Life and Films of James Cameron, which has numerous details about this short film. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 21:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I implemented a Wired article to start a "Production" section. I would recommend using The Futurist to provide additional detail about the short. Some of it should be viewable in Google Books Search or on Amazon.com. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 21:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as being an improvable article on the first film of someone who then become a notable director. Kudos to Erik for his WP:BEFORE. And a polite note to the nominator: Addressable issues are rarely a sound reason to nominate something for deletion simply in their not yet being done.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. First film of a notable director. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. James Cameron is sufficiently notable that his first film is certainly notable. —Lowellian (reply) 11:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Editors here are arguing to keep just because this is a notable director's first film. The argument to keep should be that this topic is independently notable. The short does not meet any specialized notability criteria at WP:NFILM, so we need to consider the criteria at WP:GNG: having "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". This short exists, no one disputes that, but that does not necessarily mean coverage is plentiful. It could very well be mentioned in a couple of sentences at James Cameron's article. Please argue to keep by supporting the presence of coverage about the short and indicating where additional coverage exists. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 12:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay Erik, the topic is independently notable in the same way that any notable director's film might be notable: through it meeting the criteria of WP:GNG and that of WP:NF. While yes, as Cameron's first film, it meets the criteria of Notability (films)#2, IE: "The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career) just as others are arguing, it also meets the GNG and NF .  With respects, your comment might better be taken as a "keep" so that a merge might be discussed on the article's talk page.  And some may feel that an minimal inclusion there of a "mention" would not clutter up the Cameron bio page, but for proper historical context it might require more than a "couple of sentences"... and while a "mention" there is fine, I believe that topic merits an independent article, even if not overlong.
 * Toward NF and the GNG, I note a decent review at Slashfilm that could be used to expand the article. Were you aware the film was financed by a group of dentists seeking a tax write-off? And it is easy to find that we do have lots of further sources available recognizing the film's emergence and history... available in such as New York Magazine, Digital Journal, Moneyweek, Times Online, Wired News, Daily Nation, Sky Movies, Toronto Star, IESB, Business Wire, Exchange, and in the non-English sources Sueddeutsche, Basler Zeitung, 20minutes, Berliner Morgenpost, Sky Movies, O Globo, Close-Up, Die Weltwoche and a few dozen more besides.  And also of note is that the film has made it into the enduring record by its creation being written of in context to Cameron's careerup in quite a few books.  It needs expansion, yes... but it's a keeper.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm convinced! :) Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 13:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * On some days my google-foo is better than on others. :)  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 17:28, 17 March 2011 (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.