Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rocketmen (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. Davewild (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rocketmen (film)

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

Unfortunately, I can't find a single review or substantial article on this interesting 2009 space program doc to indicate that it meets WP:NFILM. Nothing. Am I missing something? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I wasn't aware of the notability requirement, and see your point. The film recently became available as streaming on Netflix, and is featured under their "recent additions" section. Netflix shows a re-release date of 2013, though I couldn't find information about how/where it was re-released.

To defend the reliability a bit, IMDB has a page devoted to the film, and the information therein (director and such) matches the Netflix version that's streaming. While I agree there's a paucity of information with respect to reviews and suchlike, I think that may change shortly with this re-release. I'd argue (perhaps a bit of a stretch) that it's received a "commercial re-release" (Item 2, bullet 3) given a release on Netflix streaming, to a large potential audience. Full disclosure - I have no vested interest in this film - I just watched it, and noticed there wasn't a Wikipedia page. I thought it was rather well done. Victorygin1138 (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, and your article makes me want to see the film. But unfortunately IMDb really isn't considered a reliable source establishing notability, either, per WP:IMDB/RS. If it is deleted, perhaps you'd like to WP:Userfy until such time as we can find multiple reliable sources? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- And yes I doubt "commercial re-release" five years on means simply appearing on Netflix. But who knows? Could be. Seems geared more for theatrical films rather than television films, which is really what this is. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Keep per following reasonable comments. I am striking my "delete" Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC) Delete This UK film released in Japan simply has no English received coverage. If Japanese reviews of commentary come forward, I could change to a keep. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, hey now, it's streaming on Netflix, so it's obviously available in an English format. (Edit: I see...you mean coverage insofar as press about the film. Gotcha). I think the rule that there needs to be some sort of major review is a little silly...I completely understand it's there so your average home movie uploaded to YouTube can't be labeled as a "documentary," but this is obviously a professional production. I could ask the folks at Netflix how they came across it. This link (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&u=https://www.historychannel.co.jp/detail.php%3Fp_id%3D00420&prev=search) (translated) looks like the Japanese version of the History channel picked it up. But, this is not my Alamo - g'ahead and delete. If someone knows Japanese, maybe they can find a review...Google is getting confused with a book of the same name, released around the same time. Victorygin1138 (talk) 10:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

((Edit: I did find that it grossed 1.2 million from BoxOfficeMojo - http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/intl/?page=&country=JP&wk=2009W37&id=_fROCKETMEN01 - looks like it was also released on PBS America, which looks, ironically, like the British version of PBS: http://www.tvguide.co.uk/detail/233940/106786401/rocket-men#.VVcZOvlViko). If you google "Rocketmen PBS documentary" (without quotes), you'll see that various PBS channels across the states are picking it up, too.)

I know it looks like I'm making a hard sell here, but really, I'm just awake before the kids, and just have some time to hunt around on this random documentary. :-) Victorygin1138 (talk) 10:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a WP:PRIMARY for some WP:V. BTW When We Left Earth: The NASA Missions, which Dale also worked on, is a good example of something that does meet NFILM. Even though there isn't a single non-primary ref on the article, when you do a Gnews search you come up with some very good results, including an Entertainment Weekly review. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 11:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If it's clearly a major professional production with a mass audience, then we should WP:IAR and forgive the absence of major substantive reviews. Some significant genres, like television documentaries and children's literature pre-Internet, just aren't reviewed very much. Sometimes the scale of movie viewing or book sales, by themselves, should be enough. (This film was shown on over 100 cinema screens in Japan in 2009, and has doubtless been viewed by rather larger audiences in the years since then on television and by streaming).--Pharos (talk) 04:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm okay with that, as nominator. I didn't realize about the theatrical release and I'm sure there must be Japanese reviews we cannot find. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 2 June 2015 (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.