Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feminism WTF

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:40, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feminism WTF

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

While well-sourced, those sources do not establish notability. Would have redirected to the director, but the redirect was reverted, so as per recent discussions at ANI, AfD is the only option. Fails WP:GNG. See the table below:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Example
https://cphdox.dk/film/feminism-wtf/		The source is from a festival which ran the film	The source is a short blurb about the film	✘ No
https://www.filmfonds-wien.at/films/feminism-wtf/theater			simple db entry	✘ No
hhttps://www.crew-united.com/en/Feminism-WTF__257660.html			another db entry	✘ No
https://www.meinbezirk.at/baden/c-freizeit/katharina-mueckstein-zeigt-neuesten-film-in-wien_a5914552		? Can't find editorial policy	Brief mention	✘ No
hhttps://www.ots.at/presseaussendung/OTS_20181129_OTS0072/23-millionen-fuer-zehn-neue-kinostoffe			Brief mention	✘ No
https://cineuropa.org/en/newsdetail/364334/			Brief mention	✘ No
https://cineuropa.org/fr/interview/364880/			Brief mention	✘ No
https://stadtkinowien.at/verleih/feminism-wtf/	The institution was publicizing the screening of the film	No editorial oversight	The article discusses the subject directly and in detail	✘ No
hhttps://web.archive.org/web/20221223132224/https://filmstandort-austria.at/en/movie/feminism-wtf	The institute funded the film		Short blurb on film	✘ No
https://fm4.orf.at/stories/3029820/			Brief mention	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

There are two more refs (the table only goes to 10). One from FISA, which is not independent, and then a YouTube video, which is non-reliable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the chart above, there are no RS. I can't find anything extra. Oaktree b (talk) 15:41, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Sexuality and gender, and Austria. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 15:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. More sources and reviews have been added as the film was screened at another festival this weekend. Is that enough to count as notable?

Zoolver (talk) 01:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the newly added sources push this over for notability. In particular, the Die Presse and Kronen Zeitung source. Rab V (talk) 18:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe all sources combined cover the topic pretty well, plus the ones that have been added recently. --Brunnaiz (talk) 20:54, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article subject has appeared in media to a degree sufficient to satisfy WP:SIGCOV guidelines and warrant keeping the article under WP:GNG and WP:NOTABILITY. The case for deletion would be stronger if these conditions weren’t met (i.e. if the subject didn’t satisfy WP:SIGCOV by WP:RS to establish WP:NOTABILITY under WP:GNG and WP:NOTABILITY and WP:GNG). However, the degree to which the subject has appeared in media is sufficient to satisfy the relevant guidelines SIGCOV, RS, GNG, and NOTABILITY, and as such the argument for keeping is stronger on its merits than that for deletion. The sources provided in the table above satisfy SIGCOV requirements necessary to demonstrate notability according to WP:GNG guidelines. On my own review of the subject and sources, I find that notability criteria are met by the amount of demonstrable reliable independent source significant coverage. Additionally, the nature of the coverage indicates WP:IMPACT, which also supports inclusion as a standalone article under inclusion guidelines. The fact that promotional material exists on the subject is not a valid reason to suggest deletion (many subjects covered in Wikipedia articles are heavily promoted outside of Wikipedia, but that doesn’t negate their notability). Furthermore, the subject does indeed pass notability thresholds under the relevant Wikipedia guidelines. I wholeheartedly concur with the above keep votes and further note that they are strongly based in existing Wikipedia policy. Shawn Teller (hy/hym) (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:29, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails GNG and NFILM. Lots of promo no SIGCOV. The souce eval table above shows this article lacks IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Promo, not IS, primary and database records do not show N. The sources added to the article are more promo and mentions, nothing from IS RS with SIGCOV. All new films have promo, might be TOOSOON, but not today. // Timothy :: talk 01:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since the film in question has just opened in its native Austria, this may warrant a Weak keep once 2–3 reviews (in German or otherwise) can be located. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 22:58, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are 3 reviews listed in the article so far, two of them from big Austrian newspapers. And the film just won an award at Diagonale. Zoolver (talk) 06:22, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for a new film that was released in theaters during this discussion, the sources in the table are sufficient. Walt Yoder (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The source assessment table doesn't include all sources, so is an unhelpful distraction (unless someone wants to update it), German sources and the award convince me that this is sufficiently notable. CT55555(talk) 02:41, 5 April 2023 (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.