Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack and the Beanstalk (2010 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 redirect to Jack and the Beanstalk#Adaptations. there seems to be a reasonable consensus for a WP:SMERGE and redirect. while Jack and the Beanstalk (2010 film) is a fairly unlikely search term by itself, with the help of autocomplete or Jack and the Beanstalk (disambiguation) it becomes a much more likely target (non-admin closure) Atmoz (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jack and the Beanstalk (2010 film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTFILM. No real coverage in third-party sources. Rotten Tomatoes, for example, lists zero reviews. Bbb23 (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This film was an entry in the Newport Beach Film Festival 2010. The lead actor, Colin Ford, ~~was nominated for~~ won a Young Artist Award for his role as Jack in this film. Rotten Tomatoes did have 11 community reviews, but none from critics. The cast includes award-winning actors Chevy Chase and Katey Segal, but the film is just somehow having a hard time reaching audiences at home. It's no understatement that this film is not their most successful, but it's still part of their filmography. Perhaps we can leave a stub notice so that editors who are more familiar with this film (e.g. past editors who created this article) can work on finding reliable sources? Jusses2 (talk) 06:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't think being an entry in a relatively minor film festival or having an actor nominated for a minor award (you've done a lot of editing of Young Artist Award and associated articles, so you probably know more about it than I - forgive me if "minor" is a mischaracterization, but there are SO many awards) is sufficient to establish notability. Also, anyone can post reviews on RT. That doesn't mean much, either. I don't think anything is going to happen with the film in the future, but certainly if it ever achieves some notability, it could be resurrected. As for past editors, I didn't even notify anyone about this because there are no real active editors except ones who were associated with the production company that made the film and were trying to promote it on Wikipedia. Nebulex was blocked. Avalonfamily, which clearly had a conflict, stopped editing in July 2010. Even this AfD has attracted almost no editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. Bbb23, I wasn't really concerned about the content of those articles, just trying to point out that third-party sources do exist, despite their sparse coverage of the film. The Young Artist Award is a somewhat misunderstood award, and you're not the first one to call it a "minor award" as you can see from the article's two former (unsuccessful) AfD nominations. There are so many because it combines film, television, live theatre, and other acting awards into one. It's like an all-in-one Oscar-Emmy-Tony for junior actors. Despite outstanding work for their age, few young actors stand a chance at being nominated for one of those "major" awards (Dakota Fanning being one of the exceptions). The YAA is just a way to recognize their achievements. It's rather humbling to see that the YAA is often one of the first awards for many of the well-known actors of today, e.g. Drew Barrymore (lost the 1983 BAFTA but won the YAA), Elijah Wood (1993), Jessica Biel (1998). Sorry if this discussion is getting off-topic for this page. Jusses2 (talk) 04:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~(Edit: Redirect to Jack and the Beanstalk#Adaptations). It received a bit of significant coverage in reliable and independent sources, when it was in development as shown by a Google News Archive search which included the names of 2 actors to reduce false positive (there are still some): Reuters article about it in production and several similar stories, perhaps based on a press release. This movie has 8 name-brand stars, but no entry at Box Office Mojo (which shows box office sales for most commercial theatrical releases). Somehow the producers got name brand actors for a low budget kiddie film. At Rotten Tomatoes, it actually has no reviews, while the weak 1952 Abbot and Costello film (which has only 1 reliable source) and the 2001 miniseries of similar names (2 refs) at least got some bad reviews at Rotten Tomatoes (not evidence of notability in any event), but they say this film was "in theatres" Nov 6, 2009. If it was released in 2009, why does the article title call it a "2010 film?" No reviews, even bad ones? Edison (talk) 17:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Pretty much a delete by default due to no reliable sources, but I'm baffled: how did something with a roster of big-name stars get made and (apparently) released without anyone taking any notice of it whatsoever. That sounds like a hoax, but there's just enough traces of it that it's definitely real (there's a trailer on youtube that looks genuine enough). I really can't explain how this apparently slipped out without anyone noticing, but there it is. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Yeah, I was surprised too when I saw the cast. I'm not so sure if released "in theatres" is correct. Someone listed it as direct-to-video on Katey Sagal's page. It looks like there just isn't a whole lot of information available about this film as it stands now, not enough for an article anyway. Aside from a listing in the filmography, this film is not even mentioned in the text of its actors' articles. I propose summarizing this article into a sentence to put on some of the actors' pages (Katey Sagal, Wallace Shawn, Chevy Chase, Christopher Lloyd, Gilbert Gottfried, Colin Ford) using the articles that Edison found as sources, followed by deletion of this article. Hopefully this film will eventually make a proper debut to warrant resurrection of this article. Jusses2 (talk) 04:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notability does not imply artistic merit. A wretched script, filmed by an inept director and cameraman, with hoaky special effects, with the world's worst acting, ineptly edited, might make for a very notable film like Plan 9 from Outer Space in an earlier era. It is rare to have a large group of box office stars and not get any mention at all as either a good family film, or an adequate kiddie film to entertain preschoolers, or a wretched film as an example of what not to do. Failing to achieve any notability with these actors is like having no hand in 7 card stud, high-low. Edison (talk) 05:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and partial merge to Jack and the Beanstalk#Adaptations where a new film adaption of the tale would have reason and context. I expanded the current article and added the reliable sources I could find That the list of notables were part of a non-violent, modernized version of this classic childrens tale is worth giving them a pat on the back, but unless reviewed by a source other than the many non-reliables dedicated to children's films, I do not see this one as (yet) achieving WIkipedia notability per WP:NF. HOWEVER, and rather than a line in the article of each of the 17 notables involved, I suggest a modest sourced paragraph be instead added to the applicable section in Jack and the Beanstalk#Adaptations, Films, and that this current article be set as a redirect to that section. If reliable sources give the DVD some reviews, we can then revert the redirect and add the sources, as it might then meet WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Two sourced sentences now added there in anticipation of the redirect.[1] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Excellent idea with Jack and the Beanstalk#Adaptations, Films! Looks like a good solution to me. Jusses2 (talk) 15:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have no problem with the redirect. I looked at the two sentences that were added by Michael. I think they are more than sufficient, meaning I don't think any more is needed.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Update I don't necessarily object to a potential redirect, but neither do I support it, primarily because "Jack and the Beanstalk (2010 film)" seems a rather unlikely search term. As long as the current content goes it doesn't much matter if there's a redirect or not. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and partial merge (to Jack and the Beanstalk#Adaptations) seems like the best idea to me. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the recent version has six references from notable sources, i.e., the main objection on non-notability is removed. Muslim lo Juheu (talk) 22:36, 18 March 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.