Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girl Crazy (1997 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 keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Girl Crazy (1997 film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film with no press notice. (Nine votes in IMDb for a recent film is a pretty bad sign.) Clarityfiend (talk) 21:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even a B movie. Bearian (talk) 02:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've added what I can to the article, cleaned up the formatting, and squeezed a few tidbits of information from various places. Despite this, I was going to refrain from !voting, but on second thought I'd like to say instead that the strongest argument for the film's notability lies in it being a formative experience for Richard Dutcher, who is clearly the auteur. I'm not familiar with Dutcher's work, but to the extent that Girl Crazy taught Durcher how to make films, and the experience moved him away from making "fluff" into making serious films, then the film is notable for those extrinsic reasons, not because of its own qualities. I think this means that the article should be kept for the film's "historical" value in illuminating this director's career. It rather hinges on how important Dutcher is, or may become. However, my own inclination in any case is to keep borderline articles, as long as they aren't destructive, misleading or uninformative.
If, however, folks here determine that it should be deleted, I urge someone to make sure that the pertinent information from it is properly merged into the Richard Dutcher article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as first feature film of notable drector. User:Beyond My Ken made some good progress and the article has been further expanded and sourced. And even though the director himself admits the film was "fluff", it has received attention in media (and not just Morman media) for years[1]. IMDB does not impart nor detract from notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. These appear to be nearly all just passing mentions, other than the one interview with the director, which could easily be incorporated in his article. Where is there any notice of the film itself by independent sources? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First film of a notable director, which the director calls his "master's thesis". Plus it gets mentioned everywhere, many Google news results restricted for paying customers only. Dream Focus 21:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — plenty of references and a notable director, already on Wikipedia. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 17:43, 22 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.