Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cherries and Clover

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. SarahStierch (talk) 01:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cherries and Clover

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

Very weak suggestion of notability that is never sourced reliably. As an unreleased film, it has not achieved sufficient coverage yet to meet notability guidelines. Relies primarily on primary sources and imdb - neither of which are sufficient. This was a contested PROD that was undeleted at WP:REFUND (✉→BWilkins←✎) 06:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no coverage of this film in any independent and reliable sources and their claims of being the "first feature film ever shot exclusively by teenagers, having been written, funded, and filmed by an adolescent cast and crew" is dubious, as I can vouch that I know at least one person who did this during their teens long before 2008. The only independent source I can find is this podcast interview, which is unusable as a reliable source. As for whether or not it'll get notice later on, it might but it's just as likely if not more so that it won't, especially considering that the director of the film is also the director of the company putting the film out. Add on to this that there isn't even a whisper of the film getting notice from any substantial film distribution company, there's nothing here to justify it even coming close to passing notability guidelines. This is ultimately just a non-notable teen production swimming amidst a score of other, older and equally non-notable teen production. If the film ever does pass WP:NFILM it can be re-added, but not before then. I have no true opposition against it getting userfied, but given that the user asking for it to be re-added is probably someone involved in the film's creation or production, I'd like them to get someone from Wikipedia:WikiProject Film to help them out given the potential WP:COI.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional: I'd also like to recommend that the user rephrase the entire article, as it's all copyvio from the PPP facebook page. [1]Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Tokyogirl. The article says, "The film is now complete and due for a Fall 2012 release" but it is not clear to me that the film is actually going to get a Fall 2012 release. As a second choice, userfy so that the article can be brought back to the mainspace if the film actually receives a theatrical release. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agreed, I haven't found any substantial evidence that is recent, the Daily Motion video interview is nearly two years old and production changes could certainly have happened. I found two other interviews from January 2011 which would be of little use. Whether or not it will actually be released, it is not notable at this time. SwisterTwister talk 21:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete - This is Jack Vero, the director of the film. Let me start out by saying that I am new to Wikipedia editing so let me apologize for whatever mistakes I make, I do however respect what this community stands for and will try to abide by its rules as best I can. Obviously I have a vested interest in defending this article so I will use independent third party sources to back up my claims of notability and provide links. But before I get to that I want to address a few earlier points. The first is the suggestion that the article can be brought back "if the film actually receives a theatrical release." The film actually was offered a limited theatrical release and garned much attention at The 2010 American Film Market where it acquired interest from several international film distribution companies including Maya Entertainment. I also personally had meetings with a few sales agents that called me out of the blue to offer to represent the film. However, being a fan of vertical integration and the democratizing effects of the internet revolution, I opted to pursue new distribution models in line with the theories of one of the most important voices in independent film distribution today, Peter Broderick (peterbroderick.com), who personally advised me to consider self or hybrid distribution. The reasons why I chose this particular path are complex so I will spare you the details but to use theatrical release as a measure of notability is a dated and vague approach. Many indie filmmakers insist on going theatrical if only to feed their egos despite the unfeasibility of the approach in the twenty first century. Not to mention that many great films were not initially granted a theatrical release but went on to gain great success afterwards. There are countless examples of this new approach being tremendously successful, whether it be Louis C.K. or the whole new generation of YouTube celebrities.

Secondly, I can personally attest to the fact that the film will be released before the 2012 holiday season and that a large sum of advertising capital has been granted to pushing the film. There is also a very real chance of celebrity endorsement but I do not want to get into the details on a public forum.

Thirdly, the film was inspired by the classic song Crimson and Clover by Tommy James and the Shondells whose notability is beyond question, and as a derivative of that landmark song it is now a part of the song's ongoing legacy. For the record, a synchronization license was recently granted to us by Sony/ATV Music Publishing for use of the song in the film.

Fourthly, I am prepared to defend the legitimacy of my claim that it is the first feature film ever shot by an exclusively teenage crew. I have video evidence and can round up dozens of witnesses. I am unaware of another completed, screenable film that makes this claim but if anyone can post a link to it I'd be happy to investigate. A feature film, for the record, must be at least 60 minutes in length to be accepted into most film festivals under the feature category.

Lastly, we have not begun to advertise or submit to film festivals yet but that has not stopped us from being invited to various press events like San Diego's Indiefest for interviews. It may be noted that just because links have not been posted to this Wikipedia article yet doesn't mean coverage doesn't exist. Here are a few links I found, all by independent sources:

ThatChannel Interview archived video:

http://liquidlunchtv.blogspot.com/2010_12_01_archive.html

AFM interview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1xXgtfezCQ

Here is a fan video someone must have made using ripped footage from the trailer and the song Hello Goodbye:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vb7Q0mZ1sQY

Here is some other page where a michael cera fan wrote about our film since michael's younger sister Molly is in it: "the film looks adorable so I had to share. Anyone in this trailer look shockingly familiar? That’s Mike’s baby sister, Molly, co-starring in Cherries and Clover. The film was shot in 2008 by a group of teens... Check it out — it looks really cute."

http://fuckyeahcera.tumblr.com

I realize this isn't major coverage but we must remember the film hasn't even been advertised or released yet. And again, let me apologize for any formatting errors I've made in this response, I'm new to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ModestMax (talk • contribs) 09:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete - I am a student at the RTA School of Media at Ryerson University in Toronto, Canada and I've written about this film multiple times in essays about the democratization of film production and there has never been a question about it's legitimacy. These are scholarly essays that reference popular media such as multiple interviews (orange tv, a podcast, and interview at one of the largest film conventions in the world- AFI), film blogs, and the actual media that exists online (film clips, soundtracks, trailers with over 10 000 views). Additionally, the question over the film's release date is quite unfair. Does Wikipedia not support international indie filmmaking? Is a release only legitimate if it's by a major film studio? Technology and distribution forms are quickly changing and deals with Amazon should certainly constitute a release. Finally, many of the musicians who have legally contributed music to the film are rising in the indie scene- Joel Battle recently played at Toronto's NXNE music festival and Molly Thomason has appeared on Trailer Park Boys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markopolous (talk • contribs) 20:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC) — Markopolous (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the release was by a major studio, it would still have to receive reasonable (and preferably recent) news coverage to ensure that it will be released. No one is denying the film's legitimacy, but there hasn't been any recent evidence to suggest it will indeed be released. Although the musicians may be "rising in the indie scene", this wouldn't ensure the film is being released either. SwisterTwister talk 21:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish that this article meets Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. Firstly, choosing another method of release aside from standard theatrical release is fine, but makes no case for inclusion. Secondly, personal attestation isn't a reliable source. Thirdly, complying with licensing and copyright isn't notability. Fourthly, being unaware of others is no proof that you did it first. Lastly, links to non-reliable sources don't represent what is needed to establish inclusion criteria are met. -- Whpq (talk) 16:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do not Delete~~ - If Cherries and Clover is the first feature film ever shot by an exclusively teenage crew I think that qualifies as notable. Those that would contest the claim that it is the first have the burden of proof to show otherwise, because there is no way one can further support the claim of being the first than by showing that no earlier examples exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ModestMax (talk • contribs) 20:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above duplicate !vote struck. Of course, the burden of proof lies on the person making the original claim. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My proof is that there is no other film that makes this claim. It is logically impossible to prove the non-existence of something beyond showing that there are no instances of it existing. If there is no evidence of another movie that makes this claim, Cherries and Clover is therefore the first. I cannot show you an example of something that doesn't exist. There is no "List of Things That Don't Exist" that I can reference. Therefore, the burden of proof must lie with the detractors of the claim. So if someone can prove that there is another completed feature film that was shot by an exclusively teenage crew then by all means, show it. There is however plenty of proof that Cherries and Clover was shot under the circumstances which it claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ModestMax (talk • contribs) 03:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You need corroborating sources that will support the claim. BWilkins is referring to WP:BURDEN, part of Wikipedia policy. BOVINEBOY2008 03:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an interview with an independent, third party web and radio show called ThatChannel in which the radio host, Hugh Reilly, confirms the validity and notability of the claim when he says: "You guys made the film Cherries and Clover, which is huge! Huge to make a feature film and you guys were teenagers at the time."

http://liquidlunchtv.blogspot.com/2010_12_01_archive.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by ModestMax (talk • contribs) 19:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delude yourself into thinking you were first - it's been claimed before, and proven before. Teenagers making films (especially ones that haven't even been released yet) is not a new thing. Heck, I even saw 8mm. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:18, 5 November 2012 (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.