Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Community Service: The Movie

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Community Service: The Movie[edit]

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

No indication of notability. The previous AfD was closed as a weak keep based on there being a review from Film Threat, but upon further inspection the disclaimer at the bottom of that review indicates that Film Threat was paid by the film's creator/distributor to review the film. That doesn't necessarily make the review biased, but it does mean that the fact that the review exists doesn't indicate notability. The other source, the news story about blackmail, is really a passing mention of the movie itself in a story about the creator being investigated for a crime. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Same weak keep per valid conclusions of last AFD just last June. That Film Threat is not a charity and has to pay their bills does not cast aspersion upon their reviews. RS is established through their long-standing film expertise. They pointedly assure neutrality and do not promise a positive review. Even with submitter paying for postage they could have decided to not review. Fine. And not really germane, even New York Times has to pay their bills through advertisement and subscriptions. WP:RS is determined through expertise... and Film Threat had that long before they had to ask filmmakers to pay for their time and postage. That the film has further coverage over the filmmaker's efforts to gain financing from a tobacco company is an added bonus which offers verification of some production information (Note: No film topic need be the "sole topic" of any source, just so long as the source can verify film information for our readers). Notability is through available coverage, even if not used in the article... and genre sources tend to show genre interest.[1][2][3][4][5] and supported by a few minor awards indicative of it being written of elsewhere. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that Film Threat's reviews are biased, because that is completely irrelevant to notability. A bad review implies just as much notability as a good review, so it really doesn't matter. However, Film Threat is taking money to guarantee reviews (it's not just paying for postage). Yes, they have the right to refuse to review a movie, but according to their FAQ page: "It is very rare, however, where we have decided not to review a film submitted through this system, but it has happened." That doesn't sound like the sort of editorial selectiveness required to confer notability, nor does it sound like Film Threat is truly an independent source (again, it's irrelevant whether or not Film Threat's reviews are neutral, as even a negative review can be used to determine notability). Look at how WP:BIO handles similar situations: The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. Thus, entries in biographical dictionaries that accept self-nominations (such as the Marquis Who's Who) do not prove notability. Film Threat accepts self-nominations, so it does not prove notability. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That same straw man could be used to attack any source that pays its bills, as they are commercial enterprises and not non-profits. You going to take pot shots at Variety (magazine) next? And please, let's not WP:WAX, while they can be related, BLP issues are not the same as notability ones. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a straw man, if anything your equating taking money in exchange for reviews to selling advertising is a strawman. I can't find a copy of Variety's editorial policy, but I can't find any indication that they have a policy of covering any film that pays them to do so. If Variety, or any other publication, included a disclosed "paid supplement" or "sponsored article" it wouldn't provide evidence of notability, but that is a completely different situation that an editorially independent publication accepting advertising. Read WP:IS: Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (no potential for personal, financial, or political gain from the publication). Yes, many publications take advertising, but they have a strict firewall between advertising and content, and editorial policies that prevent advertisers from determining content. That's completely different from a company taking money to write about something. I'm not saying the reviews are biased, just that they can't indicate notability. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 12:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I started an RfC on the Film Threat issue here. I'll also add that WP:NF requires "full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics", and this film only has one review. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While appreciating your zeal, you make a misstatement I see often. WP:NF does NOT mandate nor require "full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics". Re-read the header at WP:NF#Other evidence of notability as set to speak toward older films not newer and the tendency of editor's over-reliance on the internet... and then go visit WP:OEN. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Third comment here, sorry. Lets break down those sources you cited. While all of them could be reliable sources for establishing facts in the article, I don't see a case for them establishing notability. The first is the film's own kickstarter campaign, which is not only a WP:SPS, but is essentially an advertisement, not an indication of notability. The News Record and Journal Now articles are about the filmmaker being charged with a crime, and are not significant coverage per WP:GNG (those sources could merit the inclusion of this film in an article about the filmmaker, but evidence of his notability is very weak per WP:BLP1E). The Horrorsociety listing asks readers to "visit our kickstarter page", so it is either ~~a self published source~~WP:UGC or a regurgitation of a press release, but in either case it isn't independent. The Film Bizarro review appears independent, but isn't a "nationally known critic" per WP:NF, and even if it was, that would only be one independent review. I won't even get started on IMDB, which is a ~~WP:SPS~~WP:UGC, not an indication of notability. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPS??? Wow. IMDB is a for-profit enterprise and now a subsidiary of commercial giant Amazon.com. It is no way WP:SPS. While it is not considered a reliable source, it does offer information that could lead editors to expanded searches to find accepted reliable sources. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're partially right, in that I used WP:SPS where I really meant WP:UGC: "This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database (IMDB), CBDB.com, content farms, collaboratively created websites such as wikis, and so forth" as well as WP:RS/IMDB: "IMDb content is user-submitted and often subject to incorrect speculation and rumor. The use of the IMDb on Wikipedia for referencing is considered unacceptable and strongly discouraged." --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why descend into useless arguments? NO ONE is using IMDB to cite this article, specially not I. As for WP:UGC... IMDB, errors and all, has a paid staff to research and add information to their database and they do receive information from the very industry for which they were set up. They do not use "user-generated" content (that's us), though they do have a vetting process for user-submitted information before publishing. The site is considered unreliable because of a low-level of admitted errors (heck, even the New York Times has errors) and lack of transparency over their editing/vetting processes... but mostly because of the actual user-content in their blogs and forums and resumes. But again, discussing it here is pointless because it does not cite this article. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And a comment toward your statement "The News Record and Journal Now articles are about the filmmaker being charged with a crime, and are not significant coverage per WP:GNG". You misunderstand WP:GNG, sorry. Those rather lengthy articles dealt with allegations of the filmmaker trying to extort money from RJ Reynolds to finance just this film. So as they deal with an aspect of the film in a more-than-trivial manner, they are applicable. Had the articles been only brief mentions about the filmmaker or about his doing some non-film-related, your point would be valid. What you failed to read is "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source." Winston-Salem Journal 1, News & Record, Winston-Salem Journal 2 all speak toward indictments directly related to this film's production. And so while your idea of using this indictment in the filmmaker's article is a thought, but it raises concerns under WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep MQS is in my opinion our most reliable editor in this field, and his arguments are convincing. DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 24 September 2014 (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.