Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/11 Minutes Ago
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. —Xyrael / 13:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11 Minutes Ago[edit]
This film seems to be non-notable. I can't find any information about release. Andrew Levine 01:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No indication of any distribution. Search finds very little, mainly IMDB and Wikipedia. Fan-1967 02:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above -AMK152 00:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The film is notable for its structure. The director has decided to abandon the conventions of film-making and split the film into 11 minute segments. If any other film has a structure like this, I've certainly not heard of it. I don't know whether it has a distributor or not but I really don't see what that has to do with notability. There are many articles about films on Wikipedia that have not been distributed, many not even completed. I think we should be more interested in uniqueness rather than how many people have seen it. Mallanox 03:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Splitting a movie into segments is hardly a groundbreaking innovation. In any event, a technical innovation still wouldn't make a film notable unless it had verifiably influenced more notable filmmakers. Andrew Levine 03:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Splittling a movie into exactly equal segments is incredibly unusual. Film making is as other artforms tend to be, organic. This is a complete departure. As a film student myself, I would expect to find a film that is organised in a unique way to be in an encyclopaedia. Also, how can a film made in 2006 be shown to have influenced anyone else? Are we to ignore the unique because it hasn't been copied yet? Mallanox 04:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not really unusual at all. Playing around with time structure is one of the simplest student-film tropes. Dividing a movie into 11-minute segments of one shot each is exactly the sort of thing I'd expect from an independent or student filmmaker, even if nobody's done precisely that before. Besides, just doing something new without making any actual impact on filmmaking does not satisfy notability. Andrew Levine 05:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a student film, this is an established director. Please refer me to a film on Wikipedia that is an example of a film split into equal segments. Unless there is another to be an example of such a film making type, the notability comes from the fact that there isn't another. I ask again, do we ignore the unique because it hasn't been copied yet? Mallanox 12:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I never said this was a student film, I said the concept is not far removed from the sort of thing student filmmakers would do. And it's not by an "established" director, but by a director who is not mentioned in any issues of the 72 film journals and entertainment news sources I searched on LexisNexis. There are countless films that play around with the structure of the narrative. And yes, as I said before, Wikipedia ignores an "innovative" film technique if it has not been the subject of imitation, influence, and critical examination. Recognition is what matters, not newness. It has to be recognized by the film community as unique. Andrew Levine 16:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As for specific films divided into segments of exactly equal length, there's Lumière and Company. Andrew Levine 16:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Replied on your talk page. Mallanox 20:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate the friendliness, and I am sure you understand that I have nothing personal against you or your contributions to Wikipedia. The fact still stands that the film has not made even the smallest impact on the world of film, and even if it does represent a unique approach to film, then no critics, film journals, or film scholars have taken notice. It needs to be recognized as innovative and discussed in the media; until then, it is not even close to meeting WP:NOTFILM. I hope you continue to work with Wikipedia:WikiProject Film (and Wikipedia:WikiProject Filmmaking) in the future. Andrew Levine 21:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Replied on your talk page. Mallanox 20:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a student film, this is an established director. Please refer me to a film on Wikipedia that is an example of a film split into equal segments. Unless there is another to be an example of such a film making type, the notability comes from the fact that there isn't another. I ask again, do we ignore the unique because it hasn't been copied yet? Mallanox 12:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not really unusual at all. Playing around with time structure is one of the simplest student-film tropes. Dividing a movie into 11-minute segments of one shot each is exactly the sort of thing I'd expect from an independent or student filmmaker, even if nobody's done precisely that before. Besides, just doing something new without making any actual impact on filmmaking does not satisfy notability. Andrew Levine 05:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Splittling a movie into exactly equal segments is incredibly unusual. Film making is as other artforms tend to be, organic. This is a complete departure. As a film student myself, I would expect to find a film that is organised in a unique way to be in an encyclopaedia. Also, how can a film made in 2006 be shown to have influenced anyone else? Are we to ignore the unique because it hasn't been copied yet? Mallanox 04:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Splitting a movie into segments is hardly a groundbreaking innovation. In any event, a technical innovation still wouldn't make a film notable unless it had verifiably influenced more notable filmmakers. Andrew Levine 03:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Uniqueness is not notability. This film has perhaps one, but not the other. Zetawoof(ζ) 22:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, an independent review of the film has been added to the article. Mallanox 23:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Borderline notability. In it's favor is the fact that its cast includes actors who have at least done other recognizable work and it got review from a serious film reviewer.Agne 17:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Have any of these actors ever done significant work, though? The lead actor, Ian Michaels, only shows up as having held credited roles in a few other shorts - his only parts in significant movies and TV shows were bit parts like "Stoner #1" and "Guy in Chem Lab". Having a page on IMDB doesn't make an actor or a film notable. Zetawoof(ζ) 19:51, 15 September 2006 (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.