Talk:Believers (film)

message: 1) A cursory internet search only returns IMDB and other unaccaptable 2ndary sources. The Rottten Tomatoes page lists five reviews, five review of no note or national standing or significance. 
2) The IMDB reference and others do not meet notability guidelines per WP:NOTFLLM
3) There is no  full-length featured newspaper articles from large circulation newspapers or full-length magazine reviews and criticism reviewing the film.
4) The film appears not to be widely distributed in the US and it has not received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. It is straight to DVD release so there is no box office of note or opening weekend news. 
5) The film is not historically notable.
6) The film was is not considered notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals. 
7) The film has not bee featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema. 
8) The film has not received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.
9) The film has not been selected for preservation in a national archive.
10) As far as a internet search is concerned, the film is not "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program. 
11) The film does not represent a unique accomplishment in cinema, a milestone in the development of film art, or contributes significantly to the development of United States cinema. 
12) The film does not have any actors of note. 
I beleive this film should be given a prod tag. It does not meet notability requirements of WP:NOTFLLM and should be nominated for deletion. Barton Foley (talk) 18:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability

message: The above request to delete does not reflect the guidelines of WP:NF, as a thorough web search shows the film most definitely meets the notability requirements per WP:GNG, WP:N, and WP:NF. 
Stating "five reviews of no note or national standing or significance" is opinion. The sources as found offerded, and listed are indeed reviews of note whose authors have recognized standing as experts in their field of review. 
Even my own cursory search found johnnumessner.net, brightcove.tv, minnesota.publicradio.org, slashfilm.com, moviesunlimited.com, saturdayfrightspecial.com, openguys.org, classic-horror.com, bloody-disgusting.com, dreadcentral.com, moviesandgamesonline.co.uk, tf.org, lovefilm.com, movieweb.com, dvd.ign.com, and dozens upon dozens more. I guess I must have used a diffferent search parameter.
This film is getting tremendous coverage for a direct-to-dvd film. Since the level of "coverage" is directly dependent on the notability of the film itself, and ignoring the "tertiary" ref to IMDB, WP:NF and WP:N per WP:GNG, WP:RS and WP:V have more than been clearly established. 
The above assertions claiming non-notability are taken out of context from various parts of WP:N, WP:NF and WP:GNG in sections that indicate that IF these attributes exist, then sources proving notability might likley exist... as an encouragemnet for an editor to be diligent in proving notability. It does not say they must exist in order for notability to be proven, only that their existance would be indicative of sources existing. 
Believers (film) is not Star Wars, so a full-length newspaper review is unlikely... specially in this age of everything being online. What is offered is what may then be accepted.
Stating that the "The film appears not to be widely distributed in the US and it has not received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics" is incorrect, as any film being offered for sale through the internet has a worldwide distribution. My own cursory search led to information that domestic and international distribution is being handled by Warner Bros... not exactly a non-notable company.
With it being "straight-to-dvd", bringing up a lack of box office or opening weekend news is a non-argument. 
Calling the film "not historically notable" because it has been out for less than a year, is not about history, nor has had time to become history, is a non-argument. 
The dozens upon dozens of sources I discovered with a cursory search, show that the film is indeed considered notable by film critics and movie professionals who have the experience in their field so as to be able to make that judgement.
That an 11-month-old film has not itself been featured in a documentary or retrospective is a non-argument.
That an 11-month-old film has not received an award of some sort is a non-argument. 
That the film has not been selected for preservation in a national archive is both an unknown and a non-argument. 
That the 11-month-old film is not part of a college syllabus is a non-argument. 
That an 11-month-old film is not "YET" known to be "unique" or a "milestone" or "significant" to cinema, in the U.S. or elsewhere, is a non-argument, as it is too soon to be able to make that statement. 
That the film does not have "actors of note" is a non-argument, as a film's notability is not dependent upon the actor's notability. Hoever, even my own cursory search shows 12 of the film's actors are notable enough to have articles on Wikipedia. 
Being poorly written, poorly sourced, or poorly  searched, is a reason to ask for an article to be improved, not to call for its deletion. I have thus tagged the article for rescue and cleanup as recommended by guideline, and have begun working on it myself.  Apparently it does have a notable cast.  There are plenty of sources available, qualified in their fields so as to be suitable as reliable sources.  I expect this to be well cited and properly encyclopedic within a day or 2. Certainly, improving an article is more difficult that calling for a deletion... but I chose to improve Wiki by improving articles. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability has been proven and shown. 

message: The following links appear to be useful to further development of the article. However, they are mostly individual articles that were placed in the external links section without any further context. As such, they are not appropriate as ELs but should be used as inline references. I have copied them all here so that they do not get completely lost. Please use them to better the article.
* hollywood.com, Dan Myrick full biography, filmology, and awards
* Trailer as slashfilm.com
* Trailer at lovefilm.com
;Interviews
* Paulington James Christensen III, movieweb.com, "Daniel Myrick Has A Secret" (April 17, 2008)
* classic-horror.com
;Reviews
* Chuck Aliaga, digitallyobsessed.com (January 11, 2008)
* Julia Merriam, classic-horror.com (November 1, 2007)
* Judge Saylor, dvdddirect.com (November 5, 2007)
* notablenoise.com (November 1, 2007)
* Jason Ferguson, Orlandoweekly.com  (November 1, 2007)
* sffworld.com (August 28, 2007)
* Hock Teh, dvd.ign.com (October 23, 2007)
* John J. Puccio, dvdtown.com (October 16, 2007)
* Tyler Lumm, realmovienews.com
* Euan Kerr, minnesota.publicradio.org (June 21, 2007)
* Alex 1176, horror-movies.com
* scifimoviepage.com
* johnnumessner.net
* brightcove.tv
* moviesunlimited.com
* saturdayfrightspecial.com
* bloody-disgusting.com
* dreadcentral.com
* moviesandgamesonline.co.uk
* tf.org
* lovefilm.com
* blairwitch.de (German)
* abandonmoviex.net (Spain)
* zelluloid.de (German)
* upcominghorrormovies.com
* movieweb.com
* dvd.ign.com
Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links moved from article