Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orientation (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. Withdrawn by nominator. Cirt (talk) 03:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orientation (film)

Orientation (film) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Notability not established in secondary sources. There is one good secondary source by David S. Touretsky, but the others are IMDB and Digg, not really satisfying WP:RS/WP:V. If the subject of this article is discussed enough in secondary sources to establish notability - it's not asserted at present in this article' s current state. Cirt (talk) 03:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 04:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete unless better sources are provided. This might be a notable topic, but at the moment the article doesn't show that: the only source that actually provides significant coverage of the film is the FilmThreat review ([1]), the rest either have insignificant coverage or are unreliable sources. Terraxos (talk) 08:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - this is their big promotional publicity film. Nominator is woefully ignorant of subject area - David Gerard (talk) 12:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • This is their big promotional publicity film is WP:OR, unsourced. Saying Nominator is woefully ignorant of subject area is rude, an assumption and you have no idea what I do or do not know, and has nothing to do with whether or not the subject matter is covered enough in secondary sources to assert notability. Cirt (talk) 12:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    • It's clear you don't know much if anything from your choices for mass-nomination. While I don't at all question your sincerity, I fear I must question your judgement. "Notability" and sourcing are guidelines, and this is an example of why - you do appear to have gone through a bureaucratic box-ticking exercise when mass-nominating, rather than applying subject-area knowledge. As such, you should reasonably expect to have this pointed out - David Gerard (talk) 12:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
• For your information, I have knowledge of the subject matter. I was putting that knowledge aside, because according to Wikipedia:Notability, notability is assessed through coverage in other sources. "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Well? Has the subject of this article received such coverage in independent WP:RS sources? Where? Which sources? That would be a much better AfD "Keep" rationale than going after the nominator. Cirt (talk) 12:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC).
• Keep - the comments on the part of people who are knowledgeable about the subject are persuasive to me. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment

If enough evidence can be shown that there is significant coverage of this subject in independent secondary sources, I will withdraw my nomination and close this AfD myself. Cirt (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep The nominator appears to be on a rampage to delete article he or she has little or no knowledge. The subject of this article is highly notable.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 01:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• keep I'm not convinced by the above arguments about using notability as a guideline; while that is true, one needs a decent reason to ignore it and I'm not convinced by the above arguments. However, this isn't relevant because there are a variety of other reliable sources about this movie. See for example this piece in the San Francisco Bay Guardian. There are also a few other mentions. See this for example.The Bay Guardian review combined with the other sources should be enough to make this satisfy WP:N. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• Withdrawn by nominator -- per the last comment by JoshuaZ (talk · contribs), who has shown that there are probably more sources out there to satisfy WP:N and WP:V, if there is mention in these two independent secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 03:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

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.