Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Poughkeepsie Tapes (2nd nomination)

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, Consensus appears to be that sources used in this debate and in article establishes notability. Davewild (talk) 20:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The Poughkeepsie Tapes

This article went through an AfD and was deleted once before. Its reincarnation still seems to lack 3rd-party sourced notability. It is my understanding that existence in not sufficient to establish notability for a film. Its claimed notability, fictionalized snuff films, strikes me as more of a negative than a +: a desperate attention-getting strategy that has not yet worked. At present, no one is served by this entry but the film-maker. Hence I nominate for its second deletion. --Pleasantville (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• The prior AFD can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Poughkeepsie Tapes and was closed as "delete" on 8 Aug 2006. Rossami (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The film seems to exist, though it has never gone into general release. The snuff aspect is apparently a fiction. According to cinematical.com, the film was shown once at least once at a film festival. There is a possibility of general release in 2008, but since the whole operation seems a bit marginal, WP:CRYSTAL surely applies to this film's future career. I believe it doesn't meet the notability requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (films). EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I edited the article to remove speculation about a general release in 2008. The link used as a reference was non-working. EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I saw The Mist over the weekend at the theaters and they had a preview for this movie, so it is an actual film that appears to have theatrical notability. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, the director is going on to do other things with established stars (Dania Ramirez, Jay Hernandez). Does http://www.tribecafilmfestival.org/tixSYS/2007/filmguide/eventnote.php?EventNumber=4542 count as a reliable source? Here, a NY Times source. Corvus cornix_talk 23:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, the film is advertised as being real, so having an article that refutes the videotape authenticity is helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.226.93 (talk) 23:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Can you explain what you mean by "refutes the videotape authenticity"? --Pleasantville (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
    • The film is being presented as a documentary, but it's really a sham documentary like The Blair Witch Project. We need a reliable source which makes it clear that this is fiction. Corvus cornix_talk 00:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• So far, none of the "keep" opinions have demonstrated that this film meets any of our generally accepted inclusion criteria. The director's other work, for example, is irrelevant to this discussion because notability is not inherited. The film festival linking demonstrates existence as does the NY Times reprint of their press release but no one here has questioned the existence of the film. Not everything that is real gets covered in the encyclopedia. If this is the best evidence available, I am leaning toward a delete opinion. Rossami (talk) 00:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• The film is not yet widely distributed and therefore has not yet received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. However, there is a teaser trailer indicating that it will have a wide release via MGM (which is, as noted, being shown before 'The Mist' in theatres). Common sense dictates that it will almost certainly have full length reviews in the future when it is widely distributed. Deleting it is definitely justifiable at this point in time, but I think keeping a rewritten article with a simple description of the plot would be suitable since it will definitely meet the notability requirements described above in the near future. Of course, it would also be nice to have some sources.70.171.125.215 (talk) 18:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep ample sources, so I added a few. Marginal Notability, but sufficient for inclusion, particularly since it was shown at a major film festival. Needs expansion, not deletion. Dhaluza (talk) 12:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Those are the same sources mentioned before. They demonstrate existence, not notability. Remember that plot summaries and other directory-listing materials come from the movie producers and fail the independence requirement of sourcing. No change of opinion. Rossami (talk)

The NYT does not publish every PR it receives and Tribecca does not show every film submitted. I thiink this shows the film has received sufficient notice for inclusion. Dhaluza (talk) 17:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The film was advertised with 'Awake' on November 30th. Target release is noted on <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1010271/">IMDB</a> as February 8th, 2008. Film is ficitionalized, ala 'Blair Witch Project'.
• Keep Just watched it, getting wide release Nick Catalano _contrib ^talk 19:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Every new film deserves an article. We should just be careful what information is put on (saying that it's real and stuff).- JustPhil 15:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

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.