Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eavesdrop (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 delete. —Darkwind (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eavesdrop (film)

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

I'm nominating this along with Osiris Entertainment for a lack of notability. This is one of several films they made, almost all of which are non-notable. A search brings up nothing that would show that this film is notable. No reviews, no big awards, nothing that would show that it passes WP:NFILM. It might have had some notable people involved, but notability is not inherited by having notable persons involved in production. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say keep, weakly, because this is an example of Wikipedia doing some good: without this entry, we wouldn't know about this film (probably); it alerts other people who might name a film 'Eavesdrop' about potential copyright issues. Also, the entry does no harm. But perhaps there is a case that it does not meet the criteria.Sophiahounslow (talk) 08:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I feel this film needs to be included. The Eavesdrop DVD is readily available in nearly all major retail outlets. Eavesdrop is also available on Netflix and as of 4/9/13 has 2,142 ratings. Also, Osiris does not make films as stated by Tokyogir179. They distribute them. This film was directed by Matthew Miele who also directed the film Everything's Jake currently distributed by Warner Bros. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.15.168.129 (talk • contribs) 07:35 9 April 2013)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of a film does not mean that it's automatically notable. We also cannot keep an article because it would "do no harm". That's not how Wikipedia works. And as far as notable persons being involved with the film in any context, notability is not inherited by them having worked on the film at any point or to any extent. (See WP:ITEXISTS, WP:NOHARM, WP:NOTINHERITED, and WP:NOT in general.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete In expanding searches, we find the film exists, yes.... but has not received coverage or commentary in reliable sources. Fails WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:59, 10 April 2013 (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.