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. I am willing to userfy, and would have done so, but the author has not yet indicated that he/she is interested (the comment on MQS's talk page fell short of that). If anyone is willing to work on it in userspace, drop me a note and it will be done. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still Small Voice (2009 Film)

[edit]
Still Small Voice (2009 Film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:NFILMS. Singularity42 (talk) 02:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't rush into this AfD. I did a search online for any references that demonstrated this met WP:NFILMS. I couldn't find any. Hence the AfD. You ask "Why not give the thing a chance?" I ask "If an editor searches online and cannot find any sources that support that this article meets notablity guidelines, why hold off a nomination?" Singularity42 (talk) 02:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To you one hour and 10 minutes after creation of an article may not be a rush. As for myself, in finding available reliable sources, I saw a verifiable film topic that did violate WP:NOT. In less than that hour and ten minutes, I found sources, added them as citations and began cleaning up the article so that it met WP:V. Then I tagged it for concerns. The way I interpet Deletion policy, that was perhaps the thing to do. If the article does not then get improved, an AFD would be fine, as the opportinuty to improve it had been offered to the community. As for "Why hold off", I look to WP:WIP, WP:IMPERFECT, and WP:DEADLINE. We have a 2009 film that received coverage in New Zealand. If tagged, New Zealand Wikipedians could look to those New Zealand databases and hardcopy sourcesto which I myself so not have access. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I spent about twenty minutes looking for sources. I went through the IMDB page to see in detail to see if there was missing. At the end of the day, there are a lot of YouTube videos, there are blogs (most of which are not even independent of the film), and a local paper that celebrated the movie as being from their local town. I even tried to see if I could find movie listings from New Zealand in 2009 and early 2010 to show this move was featured anywhere but a community centre. There was nothing. You added some additional citations from the same local paper. That's great, but not that helpful to WP:NFILMS. Also, it's not as if an AfD means an immediate deletion. It means there will be a seven-day discussion. Singularity42 (talk) 10:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Local" is a subjective term. If the papers are major (for the area), are indepencdent of the subject, and offer critical commentary specifically about the film and its production, THAT is what WP:NF is looking for. Per WP:CSB, we do not expect nor demand that an independent low-budget film from New Zealand will make headlines in the New York Times or be written of in Variety. Even the biggest newspaper in New Zealand will not have the circulation of a smaller paper in a larger demographic. What is cogent is that Fairfax New Zealand is the largest media company operating in New Zealand, and is part of Australia's Fairfax Media, and so has national coverage, even if "national" only to New Zealand and Australia. Perhaps we are using different Google--Foo, but my point in sugesting a close is that even that much was easy to find and add, and that if I found that in a very quick time, there may well be more that I did not find in a search due to my not having access to other New Zealand databases or hardcopy sources. I would be fine with a renomination in 30 days, and feel that apprising New Zealanders of the concern and allowing them to make input and improvements would serve the project. Heck, even a userfication back to its author serves better than an outright deletion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since when is it policy that an AfD should only be started on an existing film 30 days after a maintenance tag was started? There's various views about WP:BEFORE (which I believe I have complied with anyway, despite the issue of it being a requirement currently being up for debate), but I've never heard that argued before. In any event, as I said, coverage by the one local (subjectively speaking) paper is not enough. There are zero criteria met at WP:NFILMS which is the relevant guideline:
  • There is no coverage by multiple, third-party, reliable sources in a non-trivial way, and therefore does not meet WP:GNG
  • It has not been widely distributed, and has not recieved full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics
  • It is less than five years old, so criterion two has no application
  • It has not recieved a major award for excellence in filmmaking
  • It has not been perserved in a national archive
  • It is not taught as part of a notable film program at an accredited college or university
I agree that it has been covered by a single, local (again, subjectively speaking) paper, some blogs, some forums, YouTube, and Facebook. It also appears that the author of this article is trying to promote this movie (such as having the death of one of the actors of this movie listed as a "notable death" in 2010 in film. But it does not meet WP:NFILMS. 'Nuff said. Singularity42 (talk) 22:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 30 days was just an arbitrary number, and we have notable topics that have had maintainace tags on then for far longer periods. It was only a suggestion out of courtesy to the newcomer author(s)... and as stated, I would not have been adverse to a renomination if improvemnents were not made within a reasonable length of time. And toward your use of "attributes to consider" as if they were mandates... many are as totally inapplicable to a two-year-old film as they are to a five-year-old film. We did have 2 in-depth artcles in at least one publication major and notable to New Zealand, suggestive that there may be more either online or hardcopy souces unavailable in the US, giving thought that the GNG might be met with time and patience. While not distributed internationally in theaters, it is avaiable worldwide through the internet, so we might look for such internet reviews. And while "nationally known" is very subjective inre critics, all it means is that if a critic reviewed it, we should be prudent in looking for sources where they might be expected to be found: New Zealand. And awards are again a criteria that simply encourages prudence in seeking sources where they might best be expected. Further, I do not know of any 2-year-old film preserved in an archive, nor any 2-year old film taught as part of a notable film program. But again, these are simply listed as "attributes to consider" that are intened to encourage our searches, not limit them. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with userfying the article. Singularity42 (talk) 03:24, 16 July 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.
More