Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Two-Minute Heist

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. MBisanz ^talk 16:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two-Minute Heist[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG with no in-depth secondary sources, just database and listing appearances, a "Biltmore Muse Pictures is excited to announce" press release and a review that (from its byline) is either anonymous or written by the film's producer. Doesn't quite meet any criteria of WP:NFILM, being shown at a festival only two years after release. McGeddon (talk) 16:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - when the movie's only reviews come from Amazon.com, that's not a good sign. The other links on the page aren't reliable, and are anyways trivial and not in-depth really. mikeman67 (talk) 16:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC) ---Another review, one from an independent film critic, has been added. The bigger film rating sites (IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, etc) tend to neglect smaller budget films, especially those that do not make a theatrical run.[reply]
Delete: As per nominator, article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Ayub407^talk 16:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Little new at this so sorry if I'm doing this in the wrong format, but this is a strong award-winning entry into the world of independent films. Does it pick up as much press as a higher profile movie? Certainly not. But it has been successful and multiple platforms and most films that fit that criteria have a Wikipedia page. Don't think the questionable lack of notability threatens the system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattducey (talk • contribs) 17:47, 14 October 2015‎

— Note to closing admin: Mattducey (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

I asked on your talk page a month ago whether the award-shaped blobs on the DVD cover meant that the film had won any significant awards, as these may establish notability - has it? An article seeming WP:HARMLESS is not by itself a reason to keep it. --McGeddon (talk) 08:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response. Only just saw your post on my talk page. The three awards at the top of the DVD cover are the ones listed in the awards section (Best Screenplay 2007 Hollywoodscripts.com, Best New Director 2009 New York Independent Film and Video Festival, and Best Actor 2009 New York Independent Film and Video Festival. I think particularly the latter two establish its notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattducey (talk • contribs) 14:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and userfy if needed. The New York Independent Film and Video Festival was a minor festival which received heavy criticism for its lack of objectivity by sources as the Village Voice and Indiewire. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a Matt Ducey has been going around the internet leaving positive reviews of this film on various internet sites, e.g., [1], [2], and [3]. If someone has a financial motive in this film that should be disclosed, per WP:COI. mikeman67 (talk) 14:08, 21 October 2015 (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.