Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uptown (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 no consensus. leaning towards a Keep, at this point in time, due to improvements post time of AFD relisting. -- Cirt (talk) 05:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uptown (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film with a cast of unknowns. Has never been released to theaters, nor even to DVD. Has won awards, but all at non-notable film festivals. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NOTFILM; lots of reviews, but all basically from blogs. PhGustaf (talk) 23:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needs cleaning up and expansion. A film does not have to be full of notables in order to be notable itself, nor does it have to have a theatrical release. For notability we look to the criteria of WP:NF... and for a film that has mainly hit festivals, this one is getting more genre coverage for an independent than might be expected. Independent Critic, D.H.Schleicher, Pilp Movies, Rogue Cinema, The Moving Arts, Cityspur, Sonic Cinema, Reel Film, Celluloid Dreams, S. James Wegg, The Critics Word. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does need to meet WP:NOTFILM. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This film has potential to be notable, but isn't yet. I say keep the crystal ball at home and leave this off of Wikipedia until this film makes it big. Dondegroovily (talk) 04:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote - see below

Delete given that it's now been released on "internet television", if it's not notable now it's unlikely it ever will be, unless by some miracle it turns into a cult film of some kind. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Incubate~~ for continued work, as the many potential sources used as external links should be incorporated as references, or as it only rcent was released on DVD, incubate it for a short while for it to receive its proper cleanup and additional sourcing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment article has been under construction to address issues. Perhaps an admin might consider a relist while issues are being addressed, prior to a decision to either delete, userfy, or incubate. So far, what was nominated as this uncited mess has become THIS... somewhat better, and still under work. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The nominator made an unfortunate error in his opening comments, as the film has indeed been released on DVD. It just took some WP:BEFORE to ascertain. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I based my claim on the fact that there is no indication of a DVD release on the movie's imdb page. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - IMDB and it is not allowed as a source within Wikipedia, so why would you chose to limit your search to them??. Had you looked past the "unacceptable" IMDB, you might have found the DVD release reported by WJBF-TV,[1] announced on the production company's own website (allowable because a DVD release is not an assertion of notability),[2] and even found the DVD itself reviewed on Reel Film.[3] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm changing my vote based on improvements by Michael Q Schmidt. He suggest Incubate, but he's made the article far better than that. Dondegroovily (talk) 03:03, 20 September 2010 (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.