Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rain in the Mountains

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. ‑Scottywong | spout _ 16:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rain in the Mountains

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

Indy film (a comedy, not a documentary) unsourced with no indication of notability. Article was prodded, prod removed with explanation that IMDB states that film won 2 awards. No independent verification for the notability of this claim/prize provided. One of the awards was from the very minor Buffalo Niagara Film Festival. The other, a very minor festival held as a fringe of Sundance, gave an award in the category Moondance International Film Festival#Sandcastle Award, a category for having both men and women in the filmaking team. Mostly, however, the article lacks secondary sourcing E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm very inclusionist, but I really can't find ANY reliable sources discussing this film in a substantial manner..--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, may not have many listed sources now, but is notable for being an award-winning Native American film, for its good comments at IMDb, and for including as an actor American Indian activist Robert Satiacum Jr., who is notable in other areas. There should be exceptions made to deletions, and this film seems to have a place in Native American filmmaking heritage. The awards won may be minor, but are notable, again, for being won by a Native American film. Randy Kryn 17:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

user:Randy Kryn. perhaps you are new to AfD. You might want to read WP:N. Notability is not a matter of opinion, it requires WP:RS, secondary sources that are not local.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not new to the sad world of AfD, where tall trees fall when no one is watching. This film has two awards. Maybe not major awards in the Golden Globe sense, but valuable to both the awardees and those giving the awards. So at a minimum the page should be kept with a sources-needed tag. WP:N is a guideline, which would have common sense exceptions, and this should be one of those. Awards, a notable actor, and its ties to Native American culture in both topic and creation (not common in film) should pass the exception bar. Randy Kryn 13:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that films with major awards might not be deleted is because awards indicate that there is significant reliable coverage of the film, not that the awards in and of themselves make a film notable. notability is not inherited from an actor, either. This film is important, I agree, because of it comes out of Native American culture, but that has to be proven in reliable sources.

There is this Tacoma Weekly source that discusses the film. If more like this can be found, then the article should be kept.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:32, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if High Def Digest is reliable. If so, this source should be considered. That might be enough to warrant a weak keep.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've searched unsuccessfully for sources, too. High Def Digest (not bluelinked) appears to be an online venue for high definition TV and video, but not a notable one that I can see, it may simply run promotional copy for the shows. It's not notable enough that anyone writes about it. As for other sorts of sources, I did find this [1] article in the Tacoma Weekly, but this kind of ultra local coverage of a local film in which a local boy (Santiacum) even supplies the local spaper with a photo of himself in costume for the film does not establish notability. It pretty much just shows what we already know, that the film was exists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that the lone article I found - in that ultra local weekly - was also found by User:3family6. Neither of us has been able to find another. Some small films just aren't notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It did win some awards. And it is notable from a Native American cultural standpoint. Knox490 (talk) 05:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)(replace comment that somehow got deleted).E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this editor changes his iVote below, withotu ~~striking~~ this ~~keep~~.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that a film examines a particular "cultural perspective" does not confer notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of awards muse be validated by coverage of the fact an award was given to this film in a reliable secondary sources;and note that these awards are extraordinarily minor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It does not have depth of coverage. It did win some awards. And it is notable from a Native American cultural standpoint. But these two things do not enable the article to meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Knox490 (talk) 01:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Declaring it just not notable because it appeals to only one culture is a poor argument, and even if notable just to that culture, we do have notability enough for Wikipedia.. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another point for guideline exception, this film is literally the only film listed by itself (not in a sub-category) in Category:Native American cinema. There are really not very many Native American film articles on Wikipedia. And the two awards this film won may be minor in notability, I don't know but they seem to have disappeared from the page, but they were awards for a Native American film. That doesn't happen near often enough, and because of that this culturally semi-important Native American film may merit a "Keep" under the exception rule, despite any seemingly applicable guidelines. Randy Kryn 02:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT is not a valid argument. Also, please try to be accurate. That category includes 2 Hopi-language films‎, 3 Lakota-language films‎, 4 Mohawk-language films‎, and 14 Navajo-language films‎.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention Category:Films about Native Americans.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alt searches: We dig deeper and more exactingly...

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

Good for you, I hope you find significant coverage in WP:RS in one of these searches. If you do, please link it here or on the page, but only if it is significant as defined in WP:GNG and reliable as defined in WP:RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I can see that User:MichaelQSchmidt put a lot of work into creating these search bars, the ones I spot-checked yield nothing better than a mention of a promotional blog written by the director during production. We still lack sources to support notability. Ping me if anyone finds sources, I am always glad to be able to change an iVote or withdraw an AfD when sources are found.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the by, I scoured the web for producer/director Joel Metlen before starting this AfD, and all I found was that after a non-notable record of working in the industry at IMDB, he appears to have left the industry years ago. directors can confer notability on films, or, at least, they are often useful search terms in establishing notability. Not here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an article. This film does not appear to me to have any innate notability in and of itself. I searched for the title, for the principal people involved and cannot find sufficient in-depth coverage of this film or of its principal people. There is only one person who was in the film that is notable for WP's purposes but that doesn't seem enough to me to convey notability to this production (and this person is notable in politics not in film). Is there another WP article that this content could possibly be merged into? Shearonink (talk) 00:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find the type of in-depth coverage you would need to show that it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:16, 28 April 2017 (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.