Talk:Imagination (film)

Reasonable presumption of notability

Available for expansion and citations:

• San Diego Citybeat
• Portland Tribune
• Film Journal
• Film Critic
• DVD Verdict
• Ion Cinema
• Cartoon Brew
• Variety
• Sonic Cinema
• Ozus' World

MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

More sources

• Frames Per Second Magazine
• Short End Magazine
• Late Film Magazine
• DVD Spin Doctor
• Joblo
• Film Intuition
• The Independent Critic
• Twitchfilm
• Mystical Movie Guide
• Big Picture Big Sound
• Campus Circle
• Dream Logic
• DVD Talk
• AMC Film Critic
  • Here you go... a diligent WP:BEFORE offered to anyone who reads this talk page, and still somehow contends this film has not met the notability criteria for films. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion? Why?

It's all well and good to put a tag and say it doesn't meet five criteria, but how about a link to what those criteria are? It seems to me that it was released; revived in multiple publications from Variety to Film Journal; is feature length; contains a narrative; is professionally made, etc. What exactly is the problem here? --Tenebrae (talk) 01:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The criteria cited seem to give short shrift to avant garde or experimental cinema. As much distaste as I have for the filmmaker or his friends having tried to use this and the Eric Leiser article self-promotionally, Imagination has gotten much more coverage than most avant garde or experimental films get. Film Journal International, from the same publisher as The Hollywood Reporter and other periodicals, is a major industry trade magazine, and a cursory Googling reveals reviews from the sources that another editor notes above, plus the AMC cable channel's FilmCritic.com and Variety. I've added the latter to the article. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I obviously have a distaste for attempts by people associated with the film maker to abuse the wikipedia. However, tat isn't relevant to my view that this article should be deleted. I'm not sure that wikipedia's notability guidelines are prejudiced against independent and avante gard films. This film is (or so the director says) in the tradition of the Bros. Quay and Svankmeyer. Its quite clear that the films of those men have received a great deal of attention -- notably attention that would justify their notability under the second criterion of wikinotability. Perhaps -- if Leiser develops more a film maker and develops a larger oeuvre -- then later this film will be seen as worthy of longer reviews by known critics or of inclusion in syllabuses. But at the moment, the answer is clearly no. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 02:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

With respects, you made an error in your deletion nomination by basing your arguments upon criteria intended for films that have been out for 5 years or longer. It is totally inappropriate to attempt to judge a 2007 film by criteria that will not apply until 2012. That said, the film has indeed been reveiwed by nationally known critics and by websites accepted by consensus as reliable enough to offer their opinions. It's a definite keep per applicable WP:NF criteria. Perhaps upon reflection, you might wish to withdraw your deletion nomination? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Imagination (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5qyWQ2lEu to http://www.cartoonbrew.com/feature-film/imagination-by-eric-leiser.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Imagination (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/Content?oid=711351&category=22191
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100326064128/http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/imagination.php to http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/imagination.php
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.allmovie.com/dvd/imagination-186943/menu

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)