Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cutting Moments

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The result was keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cutting Moments

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

I cannot deny it exists and that it's likely "interesting", but no effort is made at notability or any sort of secondary resource. News and search results uneventful; no professional reviews. Nothing seems to fill in to WP:MOVIE however I think of it. The producer has other films apparently, but has not established notability (thus so legacy notability) ♪ daTheisen (talk) 05:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. An (intentionally) truly horrible film that has received some coverage in reliable sources, e.g. New York Times, and a film guide (most of the review not viewable on Google Books). Whether that is enough though is doubtful.--Michig (talk) 19:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - insufficient coverage.--Michig (talk) 07:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stricken, see comment below I still have to stick with delete for now, sorry. Odd situation, isn't it? I can't really go with that 1600pg bulk movie guide with what can't be more than a 3-line summary and credits, and well. The NYT article, *sigh*, no. The mention of this is just 1 line within a summary for the feature-length movie comprised of disturbing short films like this one. That larger independent film doesn't have a Wikipedia entry either so we can't even merge/redirect. Still no sources but database websites and no parent to merge it to, so I still can only see a delete. Credit is due to this film though, regardless of deletion outcome... if there were ever a tilt factor in notability this would score pretty high. Then again, if it truly had large shock appeal one would think there'd be at least some sources... ♪ daTheisen (talk) 06:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still having awful luck. To help solve this, I decided to invent a new section of WP:MOVIE that would be redirected from "WP:CULT". If there's evidence of some kind of underground or "cult" following and/or the rarity of a film makes it a valuable commodity, then we can just pretend it's notable. I say that's applicable in this case since copies on sale online are about 80 gazillion dollars for a VHS. A number of search hits are file...moving sites, which you wouldn't expect to see for a 29min indie super-horror film from 1997. 3rd mostly common result are lists of "scariest movies" or link to those, etc. I'm about neutral now pending opinion of my completely invented rationale. ~~Closing admin: If there is little or no other discussion consider my opinion to be neutral--withdraw by nominator for lack of discernible guidelines pointing in either direction.~~ ♪ daTheisen (talk) 01:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6]. Joe Chill (talk) 01:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not all to be taken at face value. 1 is a wrong URL I think, 3 and 6 aren't actually about this film. I've got to say those sources aren't exactly top-notch (no alexa ratings in the top 100,000?), I'll agree that this is the best case presented yet. I'm still rather mad at imdb for linking articles to "reviews" at big movie sites that are actually just info bits. They're supposed to make this easy! ...I'm probably going to remain indifferent on this, and more general review sites like that private sites feeds my unusual cult snowballing concept. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 04:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Definitely of some note within the horror genre, at least. Included on Rue Morgue (magazine)'s list of 100 Alternative Horror films[7]. Also, this short film was later included as part of an anthology film Family Portraits: A Trilogy of America [8], which may have additional notability. The correct Film Threat link appears to be [9]; FT has been around a long time, but the links on that site seem to change somewhat frequently. [10] has a number of blurbs about the film from horror celebrities, notes festival appearances and so on. See also interviews with the director at Filmmaker (magazine) (indicating some notability outside of horror in the independent genre generally)[11] and a mention in AMC (TV channel)'s blogs' interview [12] regarding the director's remake Sisters (2006 film) of Brian DePalma's Sisters (film) (one might suppose he got the job on the basis of Family Portraits, but that would require further investigation). 169.226.85.157 (talk) 17:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (Merge). We have enough to establish that Douglas Buck is notable (see also [13], [14], [15]), but still little that gives significant coverage to this particular film. Perhaps creating an article on Buck and then merging there would be a reasonable outcome? Or maybe expanding to an article on the Family Portaits trilogy ([16], [17])? I'd be happy to give this a go should this be acceptable.--Michig (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could support either of those proposals. Шизомби (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inexplicable, Weak Keep: I give up. This thing has slowly grown on me like an odd fungus in the past 10 days; but even that pales in comparison to the pain levels felt in this short film. A few more light sources is what I was hoping for, and peopel found! hawesome. ...I haven't watched this yet since it'd be a POV matter still, but if this actually ends I think I will :) --Thank you to the kind editor who reminded me about this! I still can't give any actual guideline or policy to use for 'keep' since I long ago tried at all, so this is basically a total WP:IAR. I'd even forgotten how much I wanted to write up an essary for the WP:CULT concept, since I'm sure something extremely odd like this has happened before. A bit closer to consensus now, at least. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support User:Michig: Go ahead, and I was actually wondering that for awhile at start saying "well if the collection had an article showing notability...", so go for it you feel inclined. I'm sure the pieces would work with notability by legacy because it's this segment that's particularly "notable" part of the bigger piece so is this does close keep the WP:WEIGHT would be hard to best. I appreciate you offering to add more. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have started an article on Douglas Buck.--Michig (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely. While the article is in need of cleanup and proper sourcing,such can be done through regular editing... and is not a reason for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:25, 17 November 2009 (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.