Talk:Ice Blues

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 August 2008. The result of the discussion was Keep.

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Canadian cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
	This article needs an image (preferably free) related to the subject, such as a picture of the set or a film poster. Please ensure that non-free content guidelines are properly observed.

Canada: Cinema Stub‑class Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Stub	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the joint Canadian film and cinema task force

Television Stub‑class Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Stub	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

Media franchises Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media franchises, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to media franchises on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Media franchisesWikipedia:WikiProject Media franchisesTemplate:WikiProject Media franchisesmedia franchise articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

List of potential refs

Clearly is not a hoax, as some very brief research revealed. Copied from my AfD recommendation of speedy keep. - ^S._D.Jameson 00:24, 13 August 2008

Thank you

Much appreciated! Homoaffectional (talk) 22:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD

To all involved, whether they agree with me or not: Sorry if I came across as having a case of the IDONTLIKEIT's. My feeling is that we've got a problem across Wikipedia with a presumption that all new albums, movies, TV specials, etc. in the U.S. and other G-8 countries are inherently notable. There are theatrical releases that I earnestly believe in, albums that I've enjoyed, etc. that I would never create Wikipedia articles for because I don't feel they meet notability standards. I don't feel that most made-for-TV movies, episodes of sitcoms, etc., have any place here; and I don't think that's an IDONTLIKEIT, but rather an effort to apply the notability standards equitably across the board. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

copied from my talk, as I just saw this here That still strikes me as WP:IDONTLIKEIT, though, Mike. This is an issue to be hashed out at WP:NOTE, I would think, not at individual AfDs. The current standard (which I think is a good one) is that it needs to be verifiably sourced to reliable, third-party sources. Until (and unless) that changes, articles like Ice Blues do belong on the project. ^S._D.Jameson 14:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concerns. One problem is that the first three movies all have articles and no one challenged the notability for any of those and it seems odd to start now, leaving just one out of four unworthy of notability standards, while allowing the other three articles to flourish. I personally might have supported the idea of merging all four into an omnibus entry for the various Strachey TV movies, but once the synopses were added (as I eventually intend to add to articles for all four -- I intend to so for both this one and On the Other Hand, Death within the next week or so; possibly even within the next three or four days), they would probably have become too cumbersome and would have had to be reseparated into individual entries anyway. In addition, besides the fact that the movies are adaptations of what is apparently still an ongoing series of novels (Death Vows is apparently the name of the latest one, out this month, actually), there is the noteworthiness associated with a DVD release of these films. Most Lifetime style TV movies (which I agree would not be noteworthy enough to warrant their own individual articles on Wikipedia) rarely get a DVD release. Homoaffectional (talk) 18:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Premiere

The film was shown on the Canadian station, Superchannel, in June and July -- I'm removing the tag that says it has yet to screen. (I recorded it and kept the recording, but I'm not sure how else to demonstrate that it's already been shown.) Accounting4Taste:talk 14:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought one of the sources I found mentioned that it had already been shown? Hmmm... ^S._D.Jameson 14:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might be thinking of when you added a date of 2006 to the book and are thinking of that as the movie. FYI, the date (for the novel) was really 1986; I went ahead and made the correction. Homoaffectional (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Superchannel site is not very helpful as regards the schedule of movies that have already been shown, unfortunately. I'll see what I can find out. Accounting4Taste:talk 14:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't exactly super official. ~~but it hints at someone being able to view it and record it off of the showing.~~ You could make a case that the person who uploaded it got an advanced reviewer's copy, ~~but it still takes us one step up from what we had before~~. Homoaffectional (talk) 18:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, looking at it more closely apparently it was posted by Krista Lomax, who is a major graphics designer and video artist. I would assume that she, having designed the graphics for the credit sequences for Ice Blues and On the Other Hand, Death, was allowed (or at least negotiated for it to be part of the deal if they wanted her quality work to be part of their movie) to keep a copy of her work and even post the credits sequence on YouTube, so this clip certainly isn't any kind of proof that it's been shown. Plus the date it was uploaded is well before it was made available through Super Channel. Homoaffectional (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've located a few forum postings and the like, essentially from fan sites, that refer to the showing of the film; not reliable sources, unfortunately. However, since the film is said to premiere in the U.S. in two or three weeks, and that fact is well documented, perhaps we might relax our vigilance for that brief period? Accounting4Taste:talk 17:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, A4T! If you were meant my comments on this subthread, you certainly don't have to convince me, of all people, that it's aired in Canada on the Super Channel. I believe you. ;-)

Part of the various grounds for the AfD were that the movie hadn't aired:

okay, you're right, clearly not a hoax; but does it (the film, not the book) have any notability, given that it isn't even out yet?

... so I was only trying to assist you in your efforts to prove that it's already officially aired somewhere, but believe me, I'm on your side in whatever's left of this particular debate. ;-)

Another thing proponents of deletion for this article fail to realize is that this isn't the typical Lifetime-esque TV movie. In most markets in which it's available, it's an on demand movie, which means people have to pay an extra charge to get it and enough fans specifically have to order it to convince the network and studios that it's a franchise worth continuing, at least if they don't want to have to admit that they're losing money on it. In other markets, it's only available as a premium channel; again, viewers must pay an extra charge to get the network that it's carried on. That wouldn't make it notable on its own except that it appeals to a niche market, one that has been considered sustainable from its two previous attempts to continue the series, so it must have something going for it.

I'm going to list the synopsis, when it's ready (I'm still working on the synopsis for On the Other Hand, Death and intend to finish that one first), with spoiler warnings at the beginning of the article. I understand that even movies currently out in theaters (even during opening weekend) no longer contain a spoiler notification as much as they used to on Wikipedia, but I do want to be a bit considerate to those who haven't managed to watch it just yet, especially since this particular movie is so inaccessible compared to most theatrical releases and "TV movies". Homoaffectional (talk) 23:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable sources

Added "Better source needed". Not many people will be bold enough to open a source link ("Release order" subsection) when an antivirus program splashes a warning "Website status: Risky" and further, the link is considered among "Malicious Sites". Yes, it could be an issue on my end but is the first time it has happened on a Wikipedia link. Also, the link is from "Chad Allen Online Forum Index". As a forum the reliability is questioned and it is not considered independent. The fancite webmaster mentions "the producers felt" and it would be better if the primary source was from the producers -- Otr500 (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]