Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Identical (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 DELETE.

Identical (film)[edit]

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

Part of a series of WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT edits by a COI editor to seek to publicise her client. The client's article is also at AfD. Fiddle Faddle 17:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~Keep and improve per available sources~~ (modified - see far below). Such has begun and much more is possible. It is far better to address issues in a brand new article than it is to toss a notable topic because its new author does not understand that Wikipedia is not to be used for advert. The topic is fixable. Seeing how it is done could also act to educate a newb on our ways. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete would require a fundemental rewrite to make this follow guidelines. I am not sure it meets GNG at any rate. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- While I respect Fiddle Faddle's wish to improve the project by simply deleting content from problematic new contributors, my own thought for this brand new article is that under WP:DEADLINE and WP:PERFECT it can be fixed to serve the project AND educate the newcomer... and such is being done even as you choose to vote delete. No need to blow it up when it is eventually fixable. Yes, the film is nowhere near as notable as Star Wars or Harry Potter projects, but all we need is something just notable enough to meet WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm a deletionist by nature but i am not opposed to userfication if it can be fixed. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fair enough... and perhaps this brand new article can be improved enough over the next few day so even that will not be required. Best, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I searched Google for a while, looking for any evidence that this film is available to purchase, stream, or watch it in any conceivable way, and the only thing I found was the trailer. There's no evidence that it was ever in theaters, either. It definitely played at a couple of film festivals, but unless I'm mistaken, that's not enough to establish notability. Despite the claims made in the article, it appears this project is dead, and has been reviewed by no one, according to RT. Rockypedia (talk) 05:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- From the notability guidelines for films: "films produced in the past, which were... not distributed, should not have their own articles unless their failure was notable per the guidelines." This film was apparently undistributed (I don't believe festivals count as distribution). I don't see anything about it that would make its failure notable. Therefore, I believe it's a delete all the way. Rockypedia (talk) 05:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Appreciate your view, but films do not have to have theatrical distribution in order to meet WP:NF. Festival and even direct-to-video can count. The important criteria for any topic is coverage in sources... and we do not expect nor demand that notability be earth-shattering. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agreed that direct-to-video can count, I just couldn't find any sources that even indicated that this film had been distributed in any direct-to-video format, be it Redbox, Netflix, etc... nothing. I did see an interview where someone associated with the film CLAIMED it was going to be distributed via those methods... but nothing saying that that actually happened. So I guess my question is, with just a couple of festival showings, is this film notable enough to have its own article? I'm still a no on that one. Rockypedia (talk) 01:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find it interesting that http://www.identicalthemovie.com/ is a site the movie producers are so proud of that it has gone offline, only to be found at http://web.archive.org/web/20111016150323/http://www.identicalthemovie.com/ (You have to peers to see the yellow links on the page). This, surely, cannot be a notable movie. Fiddle Faddle 10:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Utterly non-notable film with an utterly non-notable cast. No reviews according to Rotten Tomatoes, and a Google-search returns nothing but primary sources. What's next on WP, articles about "films" created as part of high school projects? Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 16:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is dependent upon coverage, not project. While many minor films do not make the cut, some few do... even if "just barely". Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notability is dependent on coverage in independent secondary sources, of which there are none. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 17:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Along with Schmidt, methinks insta-deletion is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Some sources do seem to exist. Wikipedia does not require that a film be a summer blockbuster; Ed Asner is of course Notable, and although notability is not inheritable on wikipedia, his participation guarantees that the film has some press. Schmidt posted a link to UPI over on the AfD of Kelly_B, which I *think* I agree ought to be a redirect rather than a redlink. Actress seems to satisfy WP:NOTEWORTHY though not yet WP:N. I will see if I can help improve the draft Schmidt is working on. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. Line-by-line, if I may. There's no baby here, only bathwater. All sources for this film are primary sources. While Wikipedia doesn't require a film be a blockbuster, it does require some level of notability beyond "this is my art-house film that I'm trying to promote." Ed Asner, as you pointed out, doesn't make the film notable through inheritance, and his participation garnered the film exactly zero press, unless you count a single non-notable-film-festival page (itself trying to promote the film it was showing). Schmidt's entire agenda is to prove notability of every actor and every film ever created, perhaps to ensure that his own page is as far beyond the reaches of a deletion attempt as possible (don't worry, I think he's notable. Barely). At any rate, Thomas W is right, what's next, my own home videos being notable if I get a single film festival to show them and then engage in a PR blitz? Bad precedent to set. Rockypedia (talk) 18:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oops... not all available sources are primary. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're right, there's citation that leads to UPI, which I recall used to be a news service, and is now an organization that accepts stories from anyone, including publicists, and will slap them up on their website with no attribution or regard for whether what they're publishing is even true. That's some reliable secondary source you're relying on. Rockypedia (talk) 16:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - The reference pointing to UPI was revealed for what it is, a press release from the film company, on the now deleted article about Kelly Baugher. So it's a primary source that can not be used for establishing notability for the film. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 17:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is so far short of the general standard envisaged by WP:NF that it would require substantial, in-depth independent coverage to qualify for an article, and I don't see it. The references cited are: 1. A press release, 2. The founder of the festival talking about the film it's going to show, 3. Interview with the writer/director in IFQ, 4. Rotten Tomatoes entry showing no reviews. That's not enough. "Films produced in the past, which were either not completed or not distributed, should not have their own articles unless their failure was notable per the guidelines." This wasn't a notable failure, it wasn't a notable anything. JohnCD (talk) 07:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weak delete (modified stance from original keep) per research, research, research... and yes, post-1982 UPI sources should be investigated thoroughly. I have not been able to find any connection between the interview on Independent Film Quarterly and the filmmakers or production company. And Ed Asner's words quoted in AV Club do not seem spurious. Nor does the little blurb about this film in The New York Times under its original title of Bleecker Street seem fraught with cast, crew or production conflicts. That said and lacking notability for a separate article, we have enough verifiability that this title may be redirected-after-deletion to the Ed Asner filmography and have allowed mentions in a related articles. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:59, 20 November 2013 (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.