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. Davewild (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody Island (documentary) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was created via a paid-editing project on elance.com. The subject is nonnotable, as it hasn't received significant coverage in reliable, third party sources, or any major reviews or a wide theatrical release.

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Letter to the President, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kings of the Underground: The Dramatic Journey of UGK, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiss & Tail: The Hollywood Jumpoff, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Gibson (film director) for other articles created from this bid. ThemFromSpace 15:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep if notability can be established. The motivation of the article's creation should not be a reason to delete, if WP is an "encyclopedia anyone can edit."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitfoxxe (talk • contribs)

  Notability has not yet been established as the film hasn't been covered in-depth by reliable sources. ThemFromSpace 19:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Meeting WP:GNG is not the only criteria upon which we gauge a film's notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - quick search reveals no significant coverage by reliable sources that would make this documentary pass WP:NFILM.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 02:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Yup, a keep. Just got through doing a lot of digging and made improvements and added sources to the article.[1] I have concluded after my work that this film does meet notability per WP:NF#General principles in that it is verifiable as being part of the curricula in many major universities in its being taught in their African American Studies programs as cited in the article and for having screened more than 5 years after its initial festival release. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first reference is to a library catalog.

The second is to another school's library cataloge.

The third mentions that this was aired at the Governors State University's "movie night", but does not discuss the film in significant detail.

The fourth is to another school's video library.

The fifth is a passing mention.

The sixth is to yet another school's video library.

The seventh is a passing mention.

The eighth is a passing mention.

The ninth is a passing mention/catalog entry.

The tenth is from the film's distributor (side note: look at the price.. yikes!).

The eleventh is to the Governors State University's "movie night"

The twelfth and thirteenth are identical copies of the same article that list the film as being shown at the the Governors State University "movie night".

The added references do not show that the film is taught as part of a film curriculum at a school with a notable film programs. They do not show that the film has been the subject of in-depth discussion by multiple reliable sources. The fact that the film is in college libraries is not an indication of notability. The fact that it was shown at a college "movie night" is not an indication of notability. The added sources fail to back up the point of the guidelines you cite, as well as the material you added about being taught in film courses. Not one of these sources or all of them combined confer any notability. ThemFromSpace 15:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is incorrect that films must somehow always be "subject of in-depth discussion by multiple reliable sources". Passing mentions may be found suitable, specially for a short academic documentary film 20 years old, as long as they address the film directly and in some detail. Further, that fact that the film is recommended by School Library Journal and is included in university libraries on their lists for suggested reading for courses in African American Studies is also indicative of notability, even if only to African American history in the United States, and as the majority of regular documentary shorts never find their way to University libraries. A dismissive use of the phrase "college film night" ignores the fact that rather than a just a film night, the documentary was screened as part of the Governors State University acknowledgement of Black History Month... and this happened 20 years after the films creation and 10 years after a cited festival release, allowing historical considerations.

Further, and as this film was not mass distributed for its enterainment value, we might even consider that academic films serve a very different function and come to be published and distributed through very different processes than do films intended for theatrical release to the general public. They are often highly specialized, and may only be available in specialized libraries and bookstores. For these reasons, the bulk of standards delineated for mainstream films are incompatible in the academic bailiwick. Again, common sense should prevail. In such cases, suggested bases for a finding of notability include whether the film is published by an academic press, how widely the film is cited by other academic publications or in the media, how influential the film is considered to be in its specialty area, or adjunct disciplines, and whether it is taught or required reading in a number of reputable educational institutions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Themfromspace on this one. I removed the statement from the lead paragraph of the article that explicitly states that the film is taught in universities. I reviewed every one of the sources provided and not one of them supports that statement. That being said, I don't think that criterion #5 at WP:NF is satisfied and the film cannot be judged notable as described within the criterion itself. This is not a "delete" from me just yet; I will look into the other criteria within NF and see whether the film can be judged notable before I cast my !vote. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I find that none of criteria at NF have been met and there are no sources that discuss the film directly and in detail in order to satisfy GNG. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Yes.. reversing myself. While the issue of possible notability for an academic film paralells the same issues of notability for an academic text, it seems that that greater issue might end up be resolved elsewhere. My concern herein is that the allegdedly paid SPA resorted to blatent copyvio in creating the article. While yes, I tried to address it with my later edits, I do not feel inclined to support such actions. Look at how it appeared when first nominated,[2] and compare the text to the text at Filmmakers.com,[3] and you'll see the word-for-word copyvio in the plot section and the reception section. Yes, I try to save what I can... and a stub might actually be workable if later determined notable to academia... but copyvio is a serious violation of policy and an affront to Wikipedia. This one can go. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.