Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let's Make Lemonade

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 merge to Lemon Bucket Orkestra . MBisanz talk 03:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Make Lemonade

[edit]
Let's Make Lemonade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Film lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Inclusion and awards in minor film festivals are not sufficient to demonstrate notability under WP:MOVIE. Conflict of Interest concerns have also been raised. RadioFan (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Clermont-Ferrand International Short Film Festival is the second largest film festival in France, next to Cannes Film Festival. Yohowithrum (talk) 04:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)See [1] Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if being the "second largest" necessarily makes it notable, but even given that, how does that make this movie notable? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you should be the one who gets to judge how notable French short film festivals are. France is a major European film producer and even the 2nd largest short film festival would be considered notable, in the sphere of short film festivals. Every year 100,000 people attend Clermont-Ferrand, so yes, getting in IS a big deal. Just because you haven't heard about it, doesn't make it less notable. Anamatv (talk) 04:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per Notability guidelines for films:

"The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." - The film is widely distributed on all Air Canada flights through their Video On Demand service. The film has received reviews from Moviefone and MSN.

"The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking." - See awards from the Air Canada enRoute Film Festival, selected for People's Choice and Achievement in Documentary by industry professionals (see names).

"The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career." See Lemon Bucket Orkestra. Yohowithrum (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)See [2] Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • User:Yohowithrum does a disservice to his film by presenting this somewhat tortured interpretation of WP:NFILM, and I've discussed these same points with this user before. Firstly, showing a movie on an aircraft doesn't constitute widespread national (or international) distribution. Secondly, the award the film received was a minor one: the enRoute Film Festival is not a major festival and it receives very little coverage aside from press releases. Finally, the notability of the Lemon Bucket Orkestra is marginal at best: most of the references in the band's article are unreliable or trivial. That said: weak keep or merge with Lemon Bucket Orkestra. The references in the article are, in my opinion, sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. Pburka (talk) 00:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Air Canada Film Festival isn't a film festival, it's a corporate contest. Other festivals mentioned are not significant enough to impact notability of this film. Shall we open a seperate AFD on the band? I've got similar concerns about its notability.--RadioFan (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
RadioFan, you cannot claim the Film Festival is not a Film Festival. A Film Festival is not a film festival if it's commercial or corporate? ALL Film Festivals are commercial and corporate. Yohowithrum (talk) 00:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC) See [3] Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yohowithrum, I agree with your defense of EnRoute - since when has being a commercial film festival been a disqualifying factor in the movie industry?! Having said that, it's false to claim that ALL festivals are commercial and corporate - many are non-profits. Example: Toronto International Film Festival is a non-profit with a TON of corporate sponsors. In short: Keep. Anamatv (talk) 04:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anamatv, I believe Yohowithrum meant that that despite a film festival being non-profit, it is still supported by corporate sponsors. That said, yes, the Air Canada enRoute Film Festival is indeed a film festival. CinephileMatt (talk) 04:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pburka Please be civil and leave your nasty language out of this. Yohowithrum (talk) 00:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

To clarify, I talked to Pburka about it, and I thought the bit about doing a disservice was kind of smarmy and condescending, but yeah, 'nasty' might have been a strong word. Yohowithrum (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC) See [4] Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly meets WP:GNG, having being covered in multiple independent sources. BOVINEBOY2008 01:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, there are a handful of somewhat independent sources. The eyeOpener is the student newspaper at the director's school. It has an interest in promoting the director. Air Canada and its magazine, enRoute, are the organizers of the festival. The Globe and Mail article is actually a press release. CTV etalk is arguably independent, but in my experience it's the television equivalent of a press release. Pburka (talk) 01:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I realize that I was excessively harsh in this response. There are a number of borderline sources in the article, as I pointed out above. But please don't discount the MSN, Moviefone and Dorkshelf sources. In my opinion, these are sufficient for WP:GNG. Pburka (talk) 14:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment worth noting that the article was created by and the only significant editor of the article is the filmaker himself. This is the subject

of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Yohowithrum_COI a request for arbitration. RadioFan (talk) 13:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This link doesn't link to anything RadioFan? StanleyTAnderson (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley (public) talk 00:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:GNG, ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so 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 material. Therefore, since most of the articles focus on the film, the festival wins or the director, they are not trivial.Etobgirl (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be quite a bit of coverage. CinephileMatt (talk) 04:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment which WP:NFILM criteria do you see it passing? There are WP:GNG concerns, specifically around the coverage in 3rd party sources. Pburka has raised concerns that the coverage either has a promotional interest and/or is largely a reprint of a press release.--RadioFan (talk) 13:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"which WP:NFILM criteria do you see it passing?" see Yohowithrum's comments above. None of these arguments are convincing "per se", instead, IMHO, the sum of them speaks in favor of a keep/merge outcome. Cavarrone (talk) 14:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Rather than pointing to another's !vote, It would be far more helpful to the closing admin for the AFD to hear your specific thoughts on how you see this article meeting WP:NFILM. There are questions about the validity of that !vote anyway, Yohowithrum is the filmaker, trying very hard to see that the article on his film is not deleted. He's also currently banned for sockpuppetry.
Re: Sorry but your above comment is misrapresenting my vote. My argument was not pointing to another's !vote but, after having read the discussion and taken a look at the article, my argument is that the film is a classic "borderline" topic but ultimately closer to be notable than not. It received a few coverage (even if probably not sufficent enough to pass GNG by itself), featured a significant involvement by a notable person (here a musical group, Lemon Bucket Orkestra), won an award in a minor - but ultimately notable - festival and is entering one another notable festival. As written above none of these elements is a guarantee of notability by itself, but the sum of these elements goes towards a (minor) notability. Cavarrone (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The topic lacks enough coverage in reliable sources to maintain a stand alone article per WP:GNG. Without enough source material, text from press releases, weekly student newspapers, etc. are being used to give bulk to the article so that it has the appearance of a Wikipedia article. The trouble is that the reliable source community does not feel that this topic is notable (otherwise, they would be writing about it). Wikipedia's articles are here to be a representative survey of the relevant literature. In this case, a representative survey of the relevant literature is text that does not amount to a stand-alone Wikipedia article -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, there are quite a bit of reliable sources, especially the official reviews, and are met by GNG. CinephileMatt (talk) 04:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per Pburka, Yohowithrum and Bovineboy2008. The film meets GNG and WP:NFILM. Significant coverage as well as independant, reliable sources. This is an article independant of the one on Lemon Bucket Orkestra that is valuable to Wikipedia. CinephileMatt (talk) 04:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, John F. Lewis (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 06:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to The Lemon Bucket Orkestra. There simply isn't enough notable coverage of the film -- as opposed to media mentions -- independent of the Ryerson college paper. Given that this is a Ryerson student film, I would have at least liked to see some significant article about the film, as opposed to the musical group, in mainstream press. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems like the information of this page isn't just about the band, but also about the film, the festivals and the filmmakers and would bloat Lemon Bucket's page, and warrants its own page. Also, there seems to be more than enough coverage. StanleyTAnderson (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC) See [5] Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Admins seem very relucatant to close this discussion for some reason. Perhaps we can speed up the process by coming to some concensus. I'm willing to withdraw the nomination if we can agree on a selective merge to the parent article on the band. RadioFan (talk) 05:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

::Comment I believe the admins are reluctant because no consensus has been made. And isn't the timing around 7 days after each AfD nom and relisting? StanleyTAnderson (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Let%27s_Make_Lemonade&oldid=1089095855"