Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rent: Filmed Live on Broadway (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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 02:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rent: Filmed Live on Broadway (film)

unreferenced; author keeps removing PROD tags — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Any editor, even the creator of an article, is entitled to remove a PROD tag. Once a PROD tag has been removed, it should not be replaced. See the article's history. -- Eastmain (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This appears to be notable. I added a review. -- Eastmain (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep; I agree with Eastmain, who has a point. -- IRP ☎ 01:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rent (musical) and Delete I wouldn't call this notable; Rent is notable, and this is just another vehicle for distributing Rent. I don't think it's sufficiently differentiated from Rent to merit a separate article. This is reflected in the lack of demonstrated notability. The program guide should of course be deleted under WP:NOTDIR. Fletcher (talk) 02:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete as per above. I think this would be at least suitable/ acceptable as a section in the Rent (musical) article. ~Pip 2 andahalf 04:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you prefer it a merge to Rent (musical)? Or maybe it would be better over at Rent (film)? This offering does have elements of both... and both other articles are themselves strongly notable. Of course, it too has its own unique notability. Perhaps its own article might best serve to improve Wiki. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: Errr ... this is just a video taken of a stage performance of the Broadway play, yes? Reviews and sources be damned, this would be like separate articles for records of a musical based on in what city the masters were cut. RGTraynor 17:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

err.... no. This is not "just a video", but a production quality filming of a live performance that was then itself released and distrubuted by a major company. Just a video? Hardly. The reviews and sources are exactly what make it notable per WP:V through WP:RS and WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand and further source, as this released Sony film has notability in its own right [1]. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google hits do not prove notability, else any anonymous blogger is likely notable. We need reliable sources in the article now, not theoretically possible sources to be added in the future. Right now there is one source from Firefox News, which is not a very strong source, and much (though not all) of it addresses Rent itself. Fletcher (talk) 22:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~So?~~ Having one source is a reason to improve an article, not delete it. ~~This AfD has been flawed from its outset. And who said anything about Google hits???~~ I never use WP:GHITS as an argument at AfD. ~~Why would you???~~ I included the search link so that you might yourself read the reviews and see the asserted notabiliy be verified. ~~I cannot imagine your reasons for not actually looking yourself... other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT...but~~ for those who have not already made up their minds, there's Houston Press: "Almost everything in this adaptation of the Broadway schmaltzfest feels fake..." ",...The movie's two redeeming elements: Angel (Wilson Heredia) and Tom (Jesse L. Martin), two men in love played by irresistible actors. Both bring light and life to an otherwise embarrassing film...", Spike: "Celebrate the end of an era at a movie theater near you", Jeff and Will: "It was stunning! After seeing the show a dozen times, I didn’t expect new nuances, but some of the camera perspectives really brought out some nice new things about the performance.", CinemaBlend: "Filmed during several live performances of the Broadway show, the movie version of Rent contains extreme close-ups and angles no theater audience could have seen-- you see everything from Maureen's butt when she moons Benny to the sweat on Angel's brow. The sound is perfect, the images are crisp-- all in all, it was way more than I saw from the upper balcony at the Peace Center back in Greenville.", FireFox: "Fans who think they have seen it all might find a few surprises thanks to those incredible camera angles. Small details like Roger’s tattoo of his dead girlfriend on his hand are quite vivid thanks, I suppose, to the HD tech. There was something really brilliant about seeing the actors perform", Cinematical: "But this isn't just the taping of some random performance -- oh no, cameras were allowed into the theater to record two special performances (one at the end of August and the final night), and it's a combo of these which will take theaters by storm". Long and short... it has its OWN independent notability, and finding these reviews was not difficult. Enjoy. Schmidt,^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately these "reviews" are either bogus, or trivial in nature. The Houston Press is a mis-titled review of Rent (film), a different work than the subject film (note the author claims it as one of the worst of 2005, while the subject film was released in 2008). Spike is a one paragraph announcement. Cinemablend has one paragraph of eight about the subject film, while the rest comments on the play itself. Jeff and Will is a blog. Cinematical is just an announcement not a review. I don't see any evidence of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, hence I still think trimming and merging into Rent (musical) would be the best course for this article. Fletcher (talk) 15:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe my offerings are bogus or trivial. ~~Certainly no more bogus or trivial than your continued argument to delete.~~

Would you mind refactoring that? ~~Calling my argument an WP:UGH makes it seem that you are lying about my words, which I assume is not what you intended to do.~~ Nowhere did I make that form of argument; instead I specifically questioned the film's notability, as I found its one source to be weak, and the additional sources you found to be dubious, as explained above. My solution for the article is to move the small amount of useful content into Rent (musical), where it will be better maintained than in this lone article. Instead of addressing that, by citing WP:UGH you attribute words to me that I didn't say. Why? Fletcher (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Struck anything I might have written that is bitey. We simply disagree on the notability. I disagree that one notable article needs be swept up into another. We have opined, and now others may do so. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. :-) Fletcher (talk) 15:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nationally released films, especially from a company such as Sony, are notable. In response to Fletcher's and RGTraynor's comments, the fact it ties in as a marketing tool for the play is irrelevant, as this is a separate entity, no different than, say, a filmed version of a Shakespeare play deserving to have its own article. This article needs expanding, badly, but it's perfectly viable. And one WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a viable argument; if the film is released by a major company and is the subject of reviews, then it's notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Another AFD discussion relating to a book a few days ago also have editors trying to disqualify reviews as viable sources or indicators of notability. Please bear in mind there is Wikipedia policy declaring these things completely kosher. If you want them disqualified, you need to propose policy change. 23skidoo (talk) 18:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A film adaption of a play or book will be artistically different and will likely generate its own notability (e.g. Jurassic Park, M.C. rest in peace). This is more like a DVD release of a TV series -- the same material as the original with some minor differences, special features, etc. and likely can be covered in the main article for that series, even if it does generate Google hits and is "nationally released."

*Wow! You spoke toward the film's independent notability and dismissed it all in the same comment. If your logic were to be accepted, then we'd all have to rush over the Harry Potter film series and argue that they should all then be merged to the articles on the notable books that preceded them, rather that let them have their own articles. And that's not even the issue, as the film is been proven notable in its own right. It was sent here by the nom for being unreferenced and having the author remove PROD tags... and those are not reasons for deletion. Per WP:ATD and WP:AFD this AfD was flawed from the outset. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You completely misunderstood me. Please try to improve your reading comprehension. Fletcher (talk) 15:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I Comprehend perfectly is that is that you don't like this article and want it gone. What I comprehend perfectly is that your use of a flawed argument equating this film with a DVD release of a TV series is itsely an unsourced speculation. If you cannot accept that this AfD is flawed, then no amount of discussion will show you otherwise. You may use all the sweetly phrased arguments you wish. Simple point of fact: This film is a unique representation and has an independent and sourcable notability. The article should certainly be tagged for cleanup and further sourcing, but per WP:ATD and WP:AFD it should never been brought to AfD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate you not speculating as to my personal motivations. The article doesn't bother me on a personal level. I just think the the small amount of useful content could be provided in Rent (musical). I think my comparison to the DVD release of a TV series is valid, and while you are right my comment is unsourced, the OR policy only applies in mainspace -- you are allowed to give your opinions in AfDs, talk pages, etc., which is what I'm doing. To reiterate, the sources you provide strike me as trivial coverage, and the film is not sufficiently differentiated from the original work to allow us to build a substantive article -- the plot, themes, and characters are all redundant with the main article for Rent (musical), which leaves us with the camerawork as the only unique aspect to discuss, and I don't think that is enough to support an independent article. Indeed, other than a couple of the quotes you provided, our text does not even discuss the camerawork, likely because there's not enough information to be specific. Fletcher (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~You're correct in that speculation, such as "likely because there's not enough information to be specific", should be given no weight in a deletion discussion.~~ Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep References have been introduced and this DVD of a world-famous Broadway play - in stores just in time for Holiday shopping - is plenty notable on its own. The DVD extras alone should take care of that. -- Banjeboi 02:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears almost all of the sources cited above are about the musical RENT itself, not about this particular filming of the musical. RENT already has an article and is not being put up for deletion, so these sources are off topic, and I hope they are not included in the article. Unless I missed one, only the Rolling Stone piece addresses the film. Fletcher (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears that almost all the sources above cited above are about the ENDING of the musical Rent and ALL work toward the uniqueness and circumstance of the occasion being captured and shared with the world. These are all pieces of the mosaic that underscore the notability of Rent: Filmed Live on Broadway . Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These sources speak only to the notability of RENT. They have nothing to do with the topic of the subject article (except for the last one, as noted). Please do not add false information to Wikipedia. Fletcher (talk) 20:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These sources speak toward the ENDING of the musical Rent and work toward the uniqueness and circumstance of the occasion being captured and shared with the world. These events are caprured in the filming, and since they predate the release, they certainly could not speak toward something that did not yet exist. They exist as pieces of the mosaic that underscore the notability of Rent: Filmed Live on Broadway . As thr article itself is STILL undergoing improvement, I would ask that you not presume as to how these sources will be used. Further, I add no false information to Wikipedia and am greatly offended that you would even suggest such. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:08, 11 November 2008 (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.