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. Cirt (talk) 06:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opie Gets Laid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

fails WP:Notability_(films) Dlabtot (talk) 17:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Appears to meet the WP:GNG with reviews from DVD Verdict, DVDtalk and metroactive. The first two were confirmed at the RS noticeboard, and metroactive appears to be carrying reviews from newspapers in the Bay Area. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first two were confirmed at the RS noticeboard That is simply not true - read the discussion. A mischaracterization of such magnitude is troubling to me. Also, the applicable standard here is: "The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." Dlabtot (talk) 08:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith and don't infer that I'm intentionally information. That's simply unacceptable. As you will notice, I participated in the first discussion I linked to (in which I initially argued against its reliability) and if you read down in the archive there is a second discussion on the topic where several veteran editors weigh the merits of each source.

I did not ascribe a motive; I don't know why you mischaracterized the discussion, and I certainly said nothing about your intentions, but mischaracterize it you did. Dlabtot (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, normally when one is accused of the action of miss-characterization it is akin to calling someone a liar. I wouldn't say that again. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 20:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from further false accusations; The first two were confirmed at the RS noticeboard is indeed a mischaracterization of the discussion; if I'd wanted to call you a name, I would have done so. I did not and I will not. Dlabtot (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I believe you when you say that you didn't intend to insult me, I'm just saying that what you said would be considered offensive by most people. It's not a matter of namecalling, its a matter of slighting one's integrity. You can disagree with me without claiming that I'm miss-characterizing a source. I'm going to leave it at that. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must again ask you to refrain from false accusations; I certainly did not say or imply anything about your integrity. What I said was that your comment was a mischaracterization of the discussion to which you linked - and I stand by that statement. Dlabtot (talk) 18:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

mischaracterization: The act of characterizing something in an inaccurate or misleading way. When you say someone is mischaracerizing something it goes beyond simply saying that they're wrong, or you disagree with them. You are stating that they are distorting information or exhibiting a bias in their characterization. In the case of a wikieditor you are accusing them not holding to the shared values that the project stands for. So yes, that's a slight against someone's integrity as a participant on Wikipedia. I'm not looking for an apology, but you need to be aware of this difference. I'm done here. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 02:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your characterization was inacurrate and misleading. That's what I said. All the additional things of which you are accusing me are things that I did not say or imply. Dlabtot (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Notability_(films) is a subject-specific notability guideline; these guidelines provide a sset of alternative criteria for notability. The reasoning being, if a subject meets these criteria then it is likely that sources exist demonstrating its notability and it should not be deleted. The reverse is not true. Not meeting these criteria is not grounds for deletion, only if the subject fails to meet WP:GNG. We're looking for coverage here so we have something to build an article on. It looks like some exists. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The film has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. It fails any and all notability guidelines for that reason. Dlabtot (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three reviews from reliable sources makes significant coverage from reliable sources. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 20:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DVD Verdict and DVDtalk are fan-driven review sites. Metroactive is a local weekly. Dlabtot (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'll read in the second discussion that DVDTalk is not a fan-driven site as of 2007. And DVD Verdict is run by a professional film critic. The discussion shows that both sites have been around for about ten years and both have been quoted in reliable news sources. These aren't fan-blogs. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I disagree with your characterizations, however, there is no point in us arguing about it - the closing admin can examine the discussion, the sources, and the article for him or herself and form their own judgment. Dlabtot (talk) 18:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 06:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per Kraftlos Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article requires some cleanup, but meets criteria for inclusion through WP:GNG. Surmoutable issues are never cause for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In what way does it "meet the criteria"? Please point to specific sources. Dlabtot (talk) 16:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In what way?? Genre reliable sources serve genre topics, and it's always best to perform as wide a search as possible with as many different parameters as possible. One of the problems in sourcing is that its original title was Sunnyvale when first released in 2005. The newer title and name reflect a 2009 release and will naturally lead to a lot of dead ends in searches. As Sunnyvale (2005 film) it has greater coverage... from accepted reliable sources such as DVD Talk, Film Threat, and Rotten Tomatoes, showing notability through WP:GNG and significant coverage in reliable sources. There's more... but even those three are enough. The 2009 title might even have come from a comment by Ron Howard in 2007 to CNN Money. And gee... the film won 'Best Underground Movie' at the Golden Groundhogs Awards. Yup, its notable. Regards, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must simply note that you have failed to provide any citations to reliable sources that establish the notability of this film. Dlabtot (talk) 02:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That you personally do not wish to accept DVD TAlk, Metro Silicon Valley, Cinema Blend, Home Media Magazine, CanMag, or even DVD Verdict as reliable enough sources in context to what is being sourced, is an issue I simply have to live with. This discussion is to reach a consensus, whether you as nominator agree with the consensus or not. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Google has over 400,000 hits when I search for it, minus the words "Wikipedia" and "torrent" [1]. Lot of places review it, some of them seem notable, like this one [2]. If the DVD Talk and other ones in the article now are already confirmed as reliable sources, then that's enough. Dream Focus 20:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Completely irrelevant see WP:GOOGLE#Notability Dlabtot (talk) 02:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note @ Dlabtot: What was irrelevent was your inserting text that disparaged the review's authors in ways that would act to denigrate reviews from accepted reliable genre sources diff. I have removed your insertion of the WP:POV terms "amateur reviewer" diff as irrelevent to the coverage itself, and in your unfounded opinion being WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Such edits are not helpful, and I ask that you not repeat them. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Note @ Dlabtot: Inre your inserting your personal opinion that David Walker is "an amateur reviewer into the article as if fact, and inre the discussion on the article's talk page about Walker's expertise... even cursory research finds that for over six years Walker was the screen editor and lead film critic for Willamette Week [3][4]. During his time at Willamette Week, Walker created and programmed the Longbaugh Film Festival [5][6]. He also founded Indie Film Journal [7]. And toward his being a nationally published film critic, that veteran film critic has contributed to MSN[8], Giant Robot[9], Rap Pages[10], Screenwriter Monthly[11], DVDTalk[12], DVD Journal[13]. He is emminently qualified to opine knowledgably about independent film [14]... and assuredly no amateur. So please, let's not make personal opinions the issue here, okay? Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Beyond all the preceeding discussion, the film has had broad festival release [15] and attention from the Online Film Critics Society [16] which is hosted by Rotten Tomatoes. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:16, 19 February 2010 (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.