Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madtown (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. MBisanz talk 03:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Madtown (film)
- Madtown (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable film, fails WP:NFILM the sources provided concern the pre release; I could find no reviews anywhere. Rotten Tomatoes has nothing on it. Looks like the film hasn't been released despite the article saying it was a 2016 film. Domdeparis (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment fails WP:NFF --Domdeparis (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- As this piece is talking about the shooting in the past tense, shows a picture from production, and is from just before the film premiered, then WP:NFF clearly does not apply. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- Hi @NatGertler: NFF clearly does apply because it covers films that haven't been distributed yet and this film is looking for a buyer. It states;
- "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. Similarly, 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." Domdeparis (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- It may not have been generally distributed yet, but film festival showings are a form of public theatrical release; it has been available for the public to see. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- Festivals are not public theatrical releases they are private events to which you can buy tickets but they are often an invitation only event such as Cannes or Berlin. Films are often shown in festivals to find buyers so they can be publicly released this obviously didn't happen here as they are doing the rounds of more festivals to try and find a buyer. There were 192 feature films presented during the festival in Cleveland. There are no reviews that I could find about this film...I don't know how many people saw it in the festivals over the last year but there wasn't a single critic that felt it necessary to talk about it...so in short this film is clearly undistributed and NFF clearly applies and even if it didn't it fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG Domdeparis (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not arguing the general notability point, merely the NFF. While there are festivals that are invitation-only, CIFF is not among them, as can be seen at the membership page for the group that runs it, which tells you that an advantage of membership is you can get tickets before they go on general sale. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- I hope you won't take this the wrong way but I think you're splitting hairs to try and prove a point. NFF is for undistributed films as it clearly says at the top of the section and this film is looking for a buyer to be distributed. Look up the term film distribution and you'll probably get why I am saying that NFF applies here. I'm going to drop the subject now as I have no idea how to be any clearer than that. Domdeparis (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not arguing the general notability point, merely the NFF. While there are festivals that are invitation-only, CIFF is not among them, as can be seen at the membership page for the group that runs it, which tells you that an advantage of membership is you can get tickets before they go on general sale. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- Festivals are not public theatrical releases they are private events to which you can buy tickets but they are often an invitation only event such as Cannes or Berlin. Films are often shown in festivals to find buyers so they can be publicly released this obviously didn't happen here as they are doing the rounds of more festivals to try and find a buyer. There were 192 feature films presented during the festival in Cleveland. There are no reviews that I could find about this film...I don't know how many people saw it in the festivals over the last year but there wasn't a single critic that felt it necessary to talk about it...so in short this film is clearly undistributed and NFF clearly applies and even if it didn't it fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG Domdeparis (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- It may not have been generally distributed yet, but film festival showings are a form of public theatrical release; it has been available for the public to see. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- As this piece is talking about the shooting in the past tense, shows a picture from production, and is from just before the film premiered, then WP:NFF clearly does not apply. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Indie film shown at Cleveland film fest, no distribution. Some minor coverage in RSes. No full film critic reviews. Gab4gab (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2017 (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.