Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Final Cut (1995 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 snowball keep. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Final Cut (1995 film)

Unnotable film article. Fails WP:N and WP:NF. Single brief article in the LA times is not significant coverage[1]. Prod removed by article creator with boilerplate statement that "it is notable" without evidence of notability given. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just google it and you will find tons of info on it.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Google is not a determiner of notability. Significant coverage in reliable sources is. Please provide them. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a relevant-looking article or two here, but I can't get behind the paywall for details. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The movie is obviously notable as it is covered in detail in numerous books such as Serial killer cinema: an analytical filmography. See WP:POINT. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I respect the nominator and her work, but for her to dismiss the numerous available news sources and then demand someone else provide them does not serve to improve the article nor the project. All that WP:POTENTIAL asks is that they BE available and that the article has a reasonable chance of being WP:IMPROVED... not that editors who have looked and then comment a keep at AFD do the work that the nominator might not have. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding bad faith snarkiness does not indicate any respect at all. I checked the sources with the film title and the director name, which gave the single source indicated above. Many of those news sources are purely press release/announcement type things, but there may possible be more that apparently found the director so unnotable as to not bother mentioning him. nor is your response a valid reason for a "speedy" keep. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At least I was trying to be civil, no matter how you took it. I have just in the last few minutes seen nearly a dozen painfully bad nominations by you. Please stop, as demanding others do the improvements of which you are yourself capable is not at all helpful and indeed acts as a disruption. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you say so. I don't see you talking to the article creator for now following A single sentence article and Wikipedia:Your first article, but then you never do. The only thing you throw out is BEFORE, yet you never bother asking other editors to follow the equivalent BEFORE for creating articles. Not very neutral to me. At least I do as I say and would not a create a one line article, and certainly wouldn't create one I never had any intention of expanding (as the creator has admitted). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure I would have handled the situation far differently than did you. If I were aware of a newly created and needy article, I might've (and in the past I have many times) offered the editor advise and assistance in improving the article, rather than assuming in bad faith that he was going to create a half-dozen mini-stubs and abandon them. I would have done a quick search to make sure it had potential and might even have expanded it and added a source or two to show by example, or at the very least have suggested what the article needed and where the editor might look. I figure it's always better to give something a chance to grow, as Wikipedia is a work in process, knows that it is itself imperfect and encourages improving articles through normal editing... and NEVER demands such be done immediately. Creating a battlefield mentality is never any good for anyone. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per this article from the Los Angeles Times (titled: Giving New Meaning to the Term 'Final Cut'), which I have added to the article. Cunard (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did note that same article in my nomination. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not consider the article to be trivial coverage. It provides several paragraphs of coverage about the film. Cunard (talk) 23:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NF specifically notes two FULL-length reviews, not a single article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

False. Full length reviews and articles would be a cincher, but guideline also accepts multiple less-the-in-depth coverage as long as they are not simply trivial mentions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thus far, all sources found are trivial. Thanks anyway. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Cunard and MQS Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep -Sour attitude by the nominator in regards to the creator. Worse still is the stubborness to even want to discuss it rationally before sending a tirade of articles to AFD before the nominator didn't get their own way. ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 01:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The LA times article is obviously notable, there more than just passive mention of the film. Other news sources are available. Dream Focus 12:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball Keep Another in a long string of bad faith noms. Anyone spending 5 minutes on google can find clear evidence of notability. Just because someone doesn't like the (admittedly poorly written) article doesn't justify deletion. Nefariousski (talk) 18:15, 5 February 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.