Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Fitting Tribute

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Clearly fails notability criteria. ChrisO 23:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Fitting Tribute

A Fitting Tribute (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Prod removed without comment, funded by a non-notable award, non-notable over all Kwsn(Ni!) 06:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Add on [1] the talk page says it was completely funded by the UK Film Council, but that revision says no. What's true as well? Kwsn(Ni!) 06:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Film is playing at the 61st Edinburgh International Film Festival, co-funded by the UK Film Council and features well-known actor from The Office and Green Wing, Sally Bretton. It is not non-notable.
You claim I removed without comment, but you barely gave me a minute to make a comment!
The page says it was *completion* funded by the UK Film Council. Since you said the other co-funder was non-notable, I removed it.
Details of the UK Film Council completion fund can be found here: http://www.mayavisionint.com/Funding/The_Short_Film_Completion_Fund/index.html and here: http://www.ukfilmcouncil.org.uk/filmmaking/shorts/completionfund/ — Tweetermonkeyman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 06:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC).
  • Comment. I can't find any trace of a film existing with this description under the title "A Fitting Tribute", but a film with the title "Are You Strong?" with the same director, production company, cast and debut screening details is listed in numerous places. The IMDB link on the article also goes to a page about this film. Has it been retitled? And if so, can somebody confirm what the correct title is? If these are the same film, then keep due to sources like [2]. If the film is determined not to be notable, then merge to a new article on the director, who definitely does appear to be notable. JulesH 12:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment that's just a page on the work the guy has done, no real article. Kwsn(Ni!) 21:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - non notable director and film company, film not released, apparently no media coverage. Addhoc 14:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm pretty confident the director and company are notable: their previous film, Amelia and Michael, was shortlisted for a reasonably well known award. JulesH 15:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I note that that ocurred nearly a year ago. It seems he has achieved quite a bit in the last year. JulesH 07:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. To answer the points made above: 1/ The title has changed and this is reflected on the film's IMDB.com page [3] and on the BBC Film Network [4]. 2/ Notable points about this film:
  • Thanks for explaining. Addhoc 20:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
    1. The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. - Failed, no reviews given
    2. The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:
      • Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release. - Failed, less than 5 years old
      • The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release. -failed, less than 5 years old
      • The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release. - failed, less than 5 years old
      • The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema. - failed, no proof given
    3. The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking. - failed, got an award to be FUNDED
    4. The film was selected for preservation in a national archive. - failed, nothing shown that is has been
    5. The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program. - failed, again, nothing showing it is
Nothing given by the keep votes has proven it passes any of those. The channel 4 link is just a list of the films the guy has done, nothing more. Kwsn(Ni!) 20:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, the production company itself was deleted twice, first by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Actaeon Films, then as "G4, possibel WP:COI problems". Kwsn(Ni!) 21:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
    1. The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking. - PASSED - The funding was awarded by the UK Film Council on the basis of a rough cut as part of a national completion fund scheme, hence this major award was based on excellence.
    2. The film was selected for preservation in a national archive. - PASSED - The film will be available to view in the Edinburgh International Film Festival videotheque and then - after the festival - will be invluded in its archives.
These points are made for consideration in addition to the points made above. As the Notability section on films says:
This page gives some rough guidelines intended to be used by Wikipedia editors to decide whether a film should or should not have an article on Wikipedia. While satisfying these notability guidelines generally indicates a film warrants an article, failing to satisfy them is not a criterion for speedy deletion.
My bold and italics.
On a peripheral note, I wish KWSN would be careful not to be so misleading. As a clarification on some of his points, I would like to note:
1/ I never said that the film was "completely funded" and so it's rather unfair to jump to the conclusion and imply I was lying by saying: What's true as well?
2/ You say "The channel 4 link is just a list of the films the guy has done, nothing more" but this is mis-representation of the site. As well as the editorial comment on the page which is more than just a list, you should note the context, ie. it is an editorially controlled site which offers a Directory of "Handpicked practitioners from in front and behind the camera." [6] As well as fact verification, this page serves to underline the importance of the film in the context of much wider press coverage.
3/ As I noted above, the five tests set out on the Wikipedia page on Film Notability are rough guidelines only. Any film that is less than five years old will automatically fail all of point 2.
I also note that original grounds for speedy deletion were:
1/ Prod removed without comment - Untrue, comment was added shortly after removal
2/ funded by a non-notable award - Disproved
3/ non-notable over all - Four points of notability offered, the only point which has been addressed is KWSN remrk on the Channel 4 site, which is a misrepresentation. — 87.80.29.32 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 09:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC).
→ See also:
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.