Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In the Closet (short film)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. EdJohnston (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the Closet (short film)[edit]

In the Closet (short film) (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)

I'm sorry but I just can't see this as notable. This is a short film that has appeared at a specialized festival, and not had any general release. I was able to find one significant review in what looks to me like a reliable source, and nothing else that was non-trivial. The only other currently cited source is the IMDB. Does not seem to pass any of the criteria at WP:NOTFILM. DES (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per my nom unless independent, reliable sources are found that reasonably establish notability. Notability is the only issue I see here that would warrant deletion. DES (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see this as meeting notability guidelines. One reviewer called the film a "B" movie. At first I thought I would find non-trivial coverage, but a search that includes "In the Closet" draws a number of false positives. Saw nothing more than brief reviews in passing, and they were few and far between. Also, the article does not assert any significance. The J. T. Tepnapa article indicates the film was nominated for the Iris Award, so perhaps a redirect there would be in order. Dlohcierekim 21:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 08:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - some sources recently added show an award nomination. As the article was nominated for deletion only 3 days after creation, I do not believe that reasonable attempt at improvement has been made before raising for deletion. Please follow the guidance of BEFORE. Ash (talk) 08:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I do assure you that I looked in both Google and Google news for sources, and i in fact added a reference and the "Critical response" section. I may have missed a source, but I did make a serious WP:Before attempt (I also declined a speedy deletion request). DES (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the sources added:
I'm not sure whether these together amount to notability or not. DES (talk) 18:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

***With regard to your assurance that you Googled, fair enough. However, you followed point 3 of BEFORE by tagging the article for improvement, I see little point of then immediately raising an AfD if you intended to give suitable time for the improvement you were asking for. If there are grounds for expecting improvement then an article should never be deleted. Ash (talk) 08:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Who cares. Let it go: discuss the nomination, not the nominating editor. TJRC (talk) 16:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Commet Being nominated for the Iris Award does not make the film notable. I mentioned the nomination earlier. I think it's insulting to accuse others of not looking for a way an adequate effort was made to improve this and snarky to chide the nominator with citing BEFORE, is unwarranted. as if suddenly No new information has come to light that makes the film notable. The nominator declined the speedy and brought it here for discussion. If he were reckless and in a hurry to delete, the opportunity was then. It does not take 3 days or one day to search for sources. All I found were trivial references and no indication of meeting notability requirements. Dlohcierekim 18:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • and yes DES, those links are trivial. Dlohcierekim 18:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dlohcierekim, making uncivil comments and striking them out is not a retraction. If an admin with as much experience as you behaves this way in an AfD then frankly the discussion is not worth having. I shall now strike my comments from this discussion rather than putting up with tiresome nonsense like being called snarky. I have seen far too many badly behaved and uncivil admins of late. Do what you want with this article; I'm taking this page off my watch-list so if you want to discuss your uncivil behavior please do so on my talk page.' Ash (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In spite of the new sources, deos not seem to meet any of the criteria of WP:NOTFILM. Lets consider those criteria.
    • "The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." Obviously not fulfilled, none of the reviews known are from nationally known critics, nor can the CD be called "wide distribution", I think.
    • "The film is historically notable" All the sub criteria refer to recognition that occurs more than 5 years after release, which can't apply here.
    • "The film has received a major award for excellence..." I'm not sure if the Iris Award should cout as major, but in any case this film did not win, it was one of thirty nominees.
    • No evidence of a national archive or being the subject of a college-level course.
    • Which leaves the general criterion: "...has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I see two fairly substantial reviews. One seems to be in a blog, and one in an online alternative news source. That is, IMO, at best marginal. If there were two more like the "This Week in Texas" review, i might think this notable. I also suspect that like individual songs, individual short films (12 minutes in this case) are rarely individually notable. DES (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      With respects DES, you're quoting "attributes to consider" as if they were mandated requirements. All WP:NF suggests is that if those attributes existed, editors might be diligent in a search for sources. And as you note, many of those attributes are totally inapplicable to a short independent film that was released only last October. As for the Iris Prize, it is indeed a pretty big deal and highly notable among the LGBT community of filmmakers. Guideline accpets that independent short films and more specially independent LGBT films do not get reviewed by "nationally known critics" in the same manner the major studio's, highly-touted and financed blocbusters do. Being notable to the LGBT community is notable enough for Wikipedia. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@MichaelQSchmidt: In general, (in my experience here) the criteria of a notability guideline are treated as mostly mandatory if the subject doesn't fulfill the general notability guideline, that is if sources with significant discussion of the subject to establish it's notability haven't been found and presented. If sources to establish notability have been found, fine, that ends the question. If not then if one or more of the alternative criteria is fulfilled, then in general people will presume notability. If neither is true, then usually the subject will be considered non-notable unless there is a very special reason why not. It doesn't seem to me that the general criterion has been fulfilled, although that could be debated. There is some coverage, so what is sufficient is a judgment call. Therefore I went down the list of alternative criteria, to see if any of them were fulfilled either. None seems to be, IMO. I will grant that a prize or award notable within a particular community, such as the LTGB community, is enough for notability, we don't cover only mainstream Hollywood culture, and should not. But is being one of thirty nominees for the award enough to make this notable? In particular is "gayporntimes" a reliable source, or is it more of a self-published blog? if it is a blog we have exactly one review, the TWIT one, from a reliable source. You say "Guideline accepts that independent short films...do not get reviewed by 'nationally known critics'" Where does it discuss an alternate way of determining notability for short films. WP:NSONG says that individual songs are very rarely notable. Does/should a similar principle apply to short films? if not, why not? DES (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you actually look at those, they are not reviews, the first one has only a single sentence about the film which, roughly translated reads: The young and popular porn performer Brent Corrigan, for example, protrays a disturbing emissary of evil forces in the short film "In The Closet" by Jody Wheeler, which was presented with a good success at the Iris Prize Festival 2009, but this is only the tip of the iceberg. The second one has exactly the same sentence in the same paragraph. --Bejnar (talk) 03:01, 8 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/In_the_Closet_(short_film)&oldid=1080176005"