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. (non-admin closure) B music ian 04:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ground Control (film)

[edit]

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

This article fails to comply with Wikipedia Notability Guideline. It is nothing but a poor mirror of IMDB page of the film, which is unacceptable in Wikipedia. Fleet Command (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per #1 of WP:NF#Other evidence of notability
Film was distributed to Italy, Iceland, USA, Germany, Spain, UK, and France. link
I also found two full reviews from the critics Nathan Rabin link and Dragan Antulov link Cimorcus talk 07:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well done. Your argument is indeed valid and sound. However, this only solves half of my nomination's proposal. The other half, which is WP:NOTMIRROR, is still not resolved. Please note that WP:NOTMIRROR is more important than Notability: Notability is just a guideline but WP:NOT is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. If this jumble of text which we call "article" is not improved, it might be speedy deleted. Fleet Command (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just to clarify, and with respects, film articles are generally not speediable... even if poorly written or lacking proper sources... as notability is a different threshold than CSD. And WP:NOTMIRROR is set to address "collections of external links or Internet directories", "collections of internal links", "collections of public domain or other source material", and "collections of photographs or media files", and not an article that has context and content, even if it's a stub which may have been poorly written and improperly sourced. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Cimorcus. It would be good to add this info to the article. ●Mehran ^Debate● 07:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions § Per nom. Fleet Command (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator has confused a badly written article with rules around notability. A film starring Kiefer Sutherland and featuring Henry Winkler must have some shread of notability, which has been demonstrated above. Lugnuts (talk) 09:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability requires verifiable evidences and insulting the nominator will not fulfill this requirement, no matter whether the film is directed by Kiefer Sutherland or God himself. Fleet Command (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete - Apart from the aforementioned IMDB source and Nathan Rabin's review (mentioned above) there is no substantial comment about this movie anywhere. There in no information available about the production house. No idea about its budget or earnings are available. Rotten Tomatoes gives it a rating of 44% but that's temp. Not enough people have reviewed it yet. From all indications this was meant to be a TV series but was turned into a movie at the last moment. More information would surely help this article. Wikishagnik (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator has pointed out two main concerns... One: the article's current state is poor. Okay.... but Wikipedia is a work in process and does not demand immediate perfection. A poor current state is more a reason to allow issues to be addressed over time and through regular editing than it is for deletion. Demanding deletion because someone else has not improved an improvable topic is not what AFD is for. If something can be fixed, we acknowledge that it can be and then allow it to be done... over time and through the course of regular editing. A surmountable issue is not a valid cause to delete. Two: Notability requires verifiable evidence, yes... but such evidence need not be in an article in order for a topic to be determined as notable. We have enough offered so far to see that WP:NF is met. Even the delete above by User:Wikishagnik discussing the article's current state offers "More information would surely help this article". I see this observation as one indicative that the topic will benefit from improvement, but I do not see it as a valid reason to delete. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent argument. However, neither I can improve this article nor I believe anyone else would ever do so. I believe the current status of the article to be its eternal state. Fleet Command (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can accept that you feel personally feel you could not improve the article, but your opinion of your own editing skills or speculation about editing skills of future unknown others does not overrule existing guideline and policy... nor is there any mandate that the article must be improved right now or be deleted per WP:NOEFFORT. While I can offer editors MANY examples of articles that other nominators at other times felt unimprovable which were were subsequently improved to serve the project and its readers, my WP:WAX comparisons, and your own admission of inability still must be weighed against this encyclopedia being a work in process that acknowledges that it itself imperfect. We do not mandate a deadline for perfection and instead allow and encourage regular editing over time... even if you as nominator do not think others have the ability or inclination to perform improvements. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, it is not just personal feeling; it is article history too. And, I am not speaking of just any imperfection, but implausible, WP:NOT-violating imperfection. Still, I think we should reach a compromise here. I'll be glad to withdraw the nomination, now that you and I are almost in the same page. It was good to know you; I like people who can put up a sound argument. Few do so. Regards, Fleet Command (talk) 12:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - How long an article might not be improved has to do with contributor interest in the topic. And while it is a sad truth that histories can show that many lessor articles might sit untouched for months or years, when such addressable issues as illuminated by you are not acted upon, we do better to have patience. That said, I have enough film industry experience and background to find sources that others might not, and as I will have the time in the next few days and have the inclination to fix this, I will address article issues myself. Because you are willing to withdraw the nomination, it will be prudent of me to show that your withdrawal was well done. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Schmidt.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

As my work on it is just beginning... and to report in about how the Find sources link assigned by the AFD template is not always the be-all and end-all, specialy for films that had releases in other countries and under other titles, this film has had its initial 1998 theatrical release in Italy as Rischio d'impatto, followed by addtional theatrical and video releases in multiple countries and under different titles, as well as television premieres in the United Kingdom in 2003 and the United States in 2005 under the article's curent title. Under WP:NF and as expanded in a related essay, commercial re-releases more than five years after initial theatrical screening are a decent indicators of notability. Having other languages and titles for which to search broadens our possibilities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...and if these alternate Find sources offer non-English coverage and reviews of a film first released outside the US and under a whole different title, that's perfectly fine with en.Wikipedia. More to do. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Since User:Wikishagnik's delete opinion above, the article has begun to be improved. While it might never reach GA of FA status, that is not a concern, as the stub that was fist nominated is being improved. More to do, yes... but addressable issues are rarely valid cause for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After going through the work done on this article, I have changed my mind. Good work Schmidt Wikishagnik (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. I apprciate the compliment. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article looks 200% better - Awesome Job Schmidt!! Cimorcus talk 01:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I was happy to be able to address the nominator's concerns. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Maybe it's time to withdraw, after MQS's good work. Congrats--you did it again. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If I can fix something, I do. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:09, 11 February 2012 (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.