Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amelia and Michael

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, clearly fails notability. ChrisO 22:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amelia and Michael[edit]

Prod removed, but with comment: "This film has been widely reviewed, played at notable festivals and features Anthony Head. It is not non-notable. (If it is non-notable, please show me a short film that is notable!)". However, one source is a defunct magazine, another is a blog. Just because a famous actor has appeared in it does not mean it's notable. Kwsn^(Ni!) 06:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks news coverage Addhoc 11:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - shortlisted for a reasonably prestigious award for short films. And including a famous actor certainly helps notability. JulesH 15:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Claims to be shortlisted, with no outside proof of it. Kwsn^(Ni!) 14:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To answer the points above:

1/ Hotdog is defunct but is still notable because it was a UK-nationwide monthly film publication, widely circulated

2/ Shooting People [1] is a notable organisation with 30,000 members in the UK and the US and it only has one Blog, run by the programmer of the Mobile Cinema, Ben Blaine.

3/ My google search shows up a great many hits [2] and so I'm baffled as to how Adhoc came up with this search result.

4/ The Akira Kurosawa Prize nomination is substantiated in several reptuable and editorially-controlled sites: Channel 4 [3] Film Centre [4] the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham press page [5] IMDB [6]

This film has is notable for numerous reasons:

1/ Features cult actor Anthony Head

2/ Funded by a notable body, the David Lean Foundation [7]

3/ Shortlisted for a notable prize, the Akira Kurosawa Memorial Short Film Prize

4/ Premiere at major festival - the Montreal World Film Festival, one of only a few Oscar-nominating festivals which is also accredited to the international federation of film producers FIAPF and the international federation of film critics FIPRESCI

5/ Extensive press and critical coverage as evidenced on the IMDB page, including coverage in: the BECTU trade journal Stage Screen and Radio (May 2007, p. 16-17), the BAFTA magazine Academy (June 2007, Vol. 2, Iss. 15, pg. 7, "A Fine Legacy"), Hotdog Issue 83 where it is reviewed on p. 118 and Anthony Head is interviewed about the film on p. 120, the Cinema and Television Benevolent Fund newsletter Issue Spring 2006, pg. 1 and 7, the Cinema and Television Benevolent Fund Sixtieth Royal Film Performance Casino Royale Brochure p. 11 and New Producer, the newsletter of the New Producers Alliance, December / January 2005-6, Iss. 111 p.12 — 87.80.29.32 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 16:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

And Finally, the film is listed in the British Films Catalogue, published by the British Council which lists every British feature film on theatrical release, but only notable short films [8] — 87.80.29.32 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:01, June 26, 2007 (UTC).

Comment First off Addhoc searched google news. You searched just google, getting a very weak result (less than 200). As with A Fitting Tribute, I'm checking this against Wikipedia:Notability (films) (again with pass/fail by each and reasoning):

1. The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. - Failed, one review given, notability of the reviewer is very questionable, and the British Films Catalogue page is not a review.
2. The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:
  - Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release. - Failed, less than 5 years old
  - The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release. -Failed, less than 5 years old
  - The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release. - failed, less than 5 years old
  - The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema. - failed, no proof given
3. The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking. - failed, was SHORTLISTED, did not get it
4. The film was selected for preservation in a national archive. - failed, the British Films Catalogue is not the national archive.
5. The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program. - failed, again, nothing showing it is

IMDB is not a source of notability, since any film can be there. Kwsn^(Ni!) 21:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And another thing, the date of the Hotdog Magazine article is given to be in 2007. However, it appears the magazine stopped being published in November of 2006. How is that possible? Kwsn^(Ni!) 21:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. - PASSED - Reviewed in Hotdog (in the final Issue 83, Christmas 2006, which would still have been in newsagents in 2007). The ISSN has been supplied and Issue No. has been supplied. Please don't try and undermine the veracity of this review, without actually getting hold of it from your local library and checking first. The film has also been reviewed on Shooting People, which is International (being web-based, but also it has memebers in both the UK and the US). Patrons of Shooting People include Morgan Spurlock, Cara Mertes, Mike Figgis, Kevin Macdonald, Albert Maysles, Sally Potter and Christine Vachon. You wilfully chose to ignore this, without giving a reason.

4. The film was selected for preservation in a national archive. - PASSED the film will be available at the videotheque and thereafter will be in the archive of the Edinburgh International Film Festival. — 87.80.29.32 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 06:40 + 06:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC) and 18:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

These points are made for consideration in addition to the points made above. As the Notability section on films says:

This page gives some rough guidelines intended to be used by Wikipedia editors to decide whether a film should or should not have an article on Wikipedia. While satisfying these notability guidelines generally indicates a film warrants an article, failing to satisfy them is not a criterion for speedy deletion.

My bold and italics. — 87.80.29.32 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 06:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. (See also 4 items below.) — Athaenara ✉ 09:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Surely each case should be judged on its own merits. Limited range of interest from these editors is not conclusive proof of Conflict of Interest. — 85.189.236.26 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 16:21, 1 July 2007 (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.