Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Welcome to Feilding

{{ns:0|M}}

:{{la|Welcome to Feilding}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Welcome to Feilding}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{findsources|Welcome to Feilding}})

I looked for and found two sources covering this film which are now used as references in the article. However, these two are pieces in a local paper from the same reporter. I'm not convinced that this is sufficient to establish the film as notable. I can find no wider coverage, nor is there evidence of significant awards or other items which may satisfy the general notability guidelines or the specific notability guidelines for film. Whpq (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Whpq (talk) 19:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Delete changed to Userfy per Schmidt below. It is clear from the article that this film has not been released yet - and there is no indication when or whether it ever will be. The budget is tiny and it is the first effort by this director/writer. Clearly fails the notability test. If the film eventually is released and receives some press, the article can be reposted at that time. --MelanieN (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)MelanieN

As the director of the film in question I fail to see what the problem is. The film is notable due to its location, age of director, camera used, budget, and soon to be discussed content. I believe the film has no relevance for USA audiences as of yet, but in New Zealand it has much relevance and therefore is notable. To delete this article is to practice censorship without merit, all because of one persons view on a foriegn film project.

Ryan Freeman.

Writer/Director/Producer "Welcome to Feilding" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.100.127.197 (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

::Ryan, congratulations on your film and I wish you success with it and with your career. But the problem is not that the film is "foreign". This is an English-language encyclopedia, not an American encyclopedia. If you can prove that the film is notable in New Zealand, that would be sufficient reason to list it here. However, please read the guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (films) to see what is required for a film to be listed in Wikipedia. "Claims of notability must adhere to Wikipedia's policy on Verifiability; it is not enough to simply assert that a film meets a criterion without substantiating that claim with reliable sources. "Notability" as used herein is not a reflection of a film's worth. A film may be brilliantly created and acted, fascinating and topical, while still not being notable enough to ensure sufficient verifiable source material exists to create an article in an encyclopedia.... A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." --MelanieN (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)MelanieN

• Delete. As this film was shot only last month, it seems likely that it is not even complete yet with regard to a final cut having been prepared. I believe that the film would need to achieve some kind of release, at least to film festivals, before it could be considered notable, or at least get significant media attention beyond the locality where it was filmed. In addition, I would be reluctant to deem the film notable enough for Wikipedia without it being listed in the Internet Movie Database yet. Nevertheless, I wish the filmmaker good luck in completing his film and achieving distribution for it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• Userfy back to author without prejudice toward recreation, in acceptance that the filming had only recently been completed, and that additional sourcing might become available if/when the film is released and reviewed. I might also encourage the author to study WP:NF and WP:GNG so that he might better understand what merits an article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —SimonLyall (talk) 10:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• Userfy per Schmidt above. I would support keeping it once the movie gets some significant coverage beyond the Manawatu Standard, e.g. in NZ's major metro daily newspapers. I didn't find any in a quick Google News search. -- Avenue (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2010 (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.