Talk:Barricade (2007 film)

I enjoy creating Wikipedia articles on low-budget horror films. If the purpose of Wikipedia's film section is to cover all aspects on cinema, I would like to dispute this movie's (and numerous other indie films') supposed ineligibility. Barricade has been wide-released on DVD and several of its cast and crew have Wikipedia articles written on them.207.45.43.67 (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

 

Image:Barricadeposter.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

1) A cursory internet search only returns IMDB and other unaccaptable 2ndary sources, not Rotten Tomatoes entry

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.

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) No actors of considerable note to lend heft to the films notability

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) 18:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply