Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salvation, Texas

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. judging consensus against guidelines I note that NOTFILM cites being screened in a festival 5 years after release is evidence of notability in conjunction with references. The keep votes rely exclusively on the screening without successfully refuting the argument that there are no substantial sources. I therefore find the delete side to be citing policy based arguments while the keep side has not successfully refuted the delete argument through policy/guidelines Spartaz Humbug! 20:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Salvation, Texas

Salvation, Texas (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)

Short student film that was shown at a few minor film festivals, but for which I can find absolutely no substantive treatment in reliable, independent sources—not even a single mainstream review of any sort. This appears to fail both WP:NOTFILM and the GNG.

Note: Technically, this article was AfD'd once before; but I'm not creating this as a second nomination, since that nomination was part of of an AfD named for a different article and since this article at that time dealt with a completely different topic. Indeed, the addition of the material about the film was part of a misguided effort to "rescue" the article from deletion then. The outcome of the previous discussion is therefore of limited relevance to the fate of the present article. Deor (talk) 00:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep screening at three film festivals (given festival boards watch alot of films to select for festivals) sounds like a good basis for some form of notability. I suspect some print media might have some references. I had a brief look on google typing in some permutations but I am not good on which .com websites are considered reliable. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree, the film festivals make it notable. This article was nominated for deletion along with others at [1] less than a year ago. Search for "Salvation, Texas" in that and you can some old debates. Dream Focus 04:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Does anyone have anything other than a vague assertion of "some form of notability"—actual substantive sources, for example? Such handwaves, unfortunately, do little to refute the fact that this topic meets none of the criteria of WP:NOTFILM. Deor (talk) 11:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As it stands, it needs some referencing. The standards include being played at film festivals I see. As I said, I don't know film sources so well. Current article quality is not a reason for deletion. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release", you mean? I can find no evidence that this 17-minute film was ever "released" at all, in any usual sense of the word, and the showings of the film among other student films in the festivals certainly haven't been five years after its completion. I am unsure what you mean by "current article quality"; if you can find anything in the article's past versions that demonstrate the notability of any of the various things that it's dealt with, please point them out. Deor (talk) 15:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. This was created as a means of disrupting the prior AfD of the prior subject and such inappropriate edits should not stand.
    Fictional town→fake real town→lame book→lame film. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 03:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep As i interpret the above comment, because we merged an article on a topic with a similar name, we must delete this one, which is on another subject entirely. ? As for the merits of this article, the festivals are sufficient, per Casliber. DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, minor student film, lacks any significant coverage by third-party sources. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 19:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: unable to verify anything other than the fact that this exists. Does not meet notability, or the specific guideline for film. Besides, Wikipedia is not for things made up one day by a couple of grad students. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Merely appearing in film festivals is not enough to establish notability in my opinion, and there's nothing in the sources beyond the fact that the film exists. Reyk YO! 09:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per passing GNG by having reliable, independent sources. --172.131.15.227 (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Film also stars a mainstream actress from two notable shows, not a mere student, for which we have an article (Alison Brie) and content from its edit history appears to have been merged to other articles some time back. --172.162.135.112 (talk) 14:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you're supposed to be using dynamic IPs to edit around your indefinite block, A Nobody. Deor (talk) 14:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why after merging content you did not originally author (thereby meaning this article’s edit history must be retained per the GFDL and that the article cannot be deleted) first to one article (that was kept per overwhelming consensus) and then to another (that was a DYK) would you only notify someone you make fun of ([2], [3], etc.) who has scrambled their password, which cannot even be emailed (as the user’s email was deactivated from Wikipedia) to the user meaning that user can never again log into that account, instead of say the article’s actual creator:
  • 00:49, 9 May 2010 (diff | hist) Jeffrey McClanahan ‎ (rm circular link) (top)
  • 00:46, 9 May 2010 (diff | hist) Salvation, Texas (book) ‎ (redirecting to Jeffrey McClanahan, where the "Reception" section of this article has already been copied verbatim—I can see no other notable material here) (top)
  • 00:40, 9 May 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:A Nobody ‎ (AfD notif)
  • 00:38, 9 May 2010 (diff | hist) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 May 9 ‎ (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salvation, Texas)
  • 00:35, 9 May 2010 (diff | hist) N Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salvation, Texas ‎ (Creating deletion discussion for Salvation, Texas)
  • 00:35, 9 May 2010 (diff | hist) Salvation, Texas ‎ (AfD: Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salvation, Texas) (top)
It is only worthwhile to notify an account you admittedlye know to be blocked and with no way of recovering its password that you happen to have years of animosity toward rather than say the article’s actual creator? Do you think people are blind? --172.129.217.86 (talk) 17:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I notified you because you were the creator with respect to information about the film, which constitutes all the article's current content. Looking more closely at the article's history, I see that I should also have notified MichaelQSchmidt, who expanded that content; and I will do so now. Deor (talk) 18:12, 16 May 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/Salvation,_Texas&oldid=1069633892"