Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Brother Cicero

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. John254 00:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Brother Cicero[edit]

Non-notable short film, despite winning two awards at relatively minor festivals. Appears to fail WP:MOVIE Ecoleetage (talk) 11:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 13:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Award wins suggest notability, but I can't find any decent references for them, or indeed any solid sources for this film. Would suggest merging into Tony Nittoli, but we don't have an article. PC78 (talk) 13:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep. There is this at IMDB. I'll see if I can dig up mare on awards... Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sadly, Wikipedia currently does not recognise IMDB as a reliable source. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification Wikipedia does recognize IMDb to a point... as a tertiary source for non-contentious facts that are themselves supported by secondary sources... such as actors and crew, but certainly not for bio or trivia. It is not always the best.... but IMDb can be used if otherwise supported. When I use it myself, I make sure it is well supported. However, I am not arguing that case here... only suggesting that if the film is listed at IMDB, it may be found elsewhere. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed vote from "weak" to a definite "keep". Found the film listed at omdb.si (a Slovakian database), Most-Wanted-Movies, MicroCineFest, Querythe.net, TopTenReviews.com, Hotflick.net, ImpossibleFunky.net, BarkingDogSound, New York Underground Film Festival, The Village Voice, FilmmakerMagazine.com, NetGlimpse, et al. It does seem to have a minor notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am sorry, MQS, but it still does not pass WP:RS. A fleeting mention in a wrap-up of a festival is not what the Wikipedia standards require.Ecoleetage (talk) 00:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well.... my understanding is that the guideline at WP:RS relies on the policy at WP:V. There, WP:V speaks toward "reliable sources" by saying "The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context" and further that "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality sources." With all respects, since policies take precedent over guidelines, since the standards for a short film are less stringent than those for an article on quantum theory, and since the sources I found do do not make any exceptional claim, I'll stand by them as passing WP:V and, in the context they were offered, as thus passing WP:RS. I have the greatest respect for your continued superb work on Wiki... and you may certainly disregard any of the of the ten proffered links you feel does not meet WP:RS, but I'll stick with my vote for I feel that in this little instance for this little film, notability has been shown. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Toward that end, I have just cleaned up the article per Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines and moved the above links over to its External Links section. Will see about further citing to affirm WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's a borderline issue about WP:FILM, but there is no doubt that the article is verifiable, and verifiability, not notability, is the main inclusion criterion on Wikipedia. While the sources for this short film (especially IMDB) aren't going anywhere, there's nothing to indicate that the short will not gain more notability in the future. Other than that, Michael Schmidt makes some good points. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per above. Enough sources to deduce notability - ATEOTD it's a short, not a blockbuster.HeartofaDog (talk) 00:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verifiable and notable. Ticks the boxes (just). Ged UK (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2008 (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.