Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Engram (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 Maggie Betts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Engram (film)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Short film fails WP:GNG "significant coverage " and WP:NFO:

"The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. The film is historically notable. The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking. The film was selected for preservation in a national archive. The film is taught as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program."

This film has done none of these things. Moved to Draft, put back in mainspace with same sourcing, which boils down to 'socialite makes film', profiled in the fashion/social pages of three fashion/socialite focused titles. Now there's nothing wrong per se with socialites making films - it's whether they have made notable films... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:41, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:41, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not sure if these help, one review in Vogue [1] and a rather bad review from an Austrian film festival? [2]. Oaktree b (talk) 13:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So the Vogue one is already in the list of sources for the article, I don't think the second one I found helps. Oaktree b (talk) 13:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The second review is unrelated to the short film Engram. In addition to Vogue, the film has received reviews from The New York Times and the fashion magazine W. Jim Classical (talk) 00:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One final relist, to see other opinions on this film.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator.Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to filmmaker Maggie Betts. Most small films would enjoy getting significant coverage from the NYT, W Magazine, and Vogue. These three sources might seem to bring the subject to meeting GNG but I'm inclined to agree with the nominator that despite those reviews, this is a film few actually saw. These sources (largely about the filmmaker) would better serve the BLP than one of her works. I'd suggest this article not be deleted; it's not inconceivable Betts's work may one day get a wider visibility. BusterD (talk) 10:25, 13 August 2022 (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.