Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ordinary Radicals

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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 12:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Ordinary Radicals

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

This documentary film does not appear to meet notability through WP:NF (or general notability). It seems to fail prong 1 because, as the article indicates, the film played in limited cities and was not widely distributed. Likewise, it also does not appear to have "received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." The other four prongs also seem unavailing. The page was deleted in 2008 for blatant advertising, so I did not prod it first. Novaseminary (talk) 02:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since the film was not released until 2008, WP:NF criteria for films 5+ years old become inapplicable. It's always going to be difficult to show notability for a specifically Christian-genre film, as they rarely get the distribution or press that do the highly financed and promoted films of major studios... and are thus unlikely to be reviewed in mainstream press. It would stand to reason that we'd have to consider it per the WP:GNG and possible notability to the Christian community. So, in looking then toward the GNG, I was a bit surprised to find coverage in such as Lexington Herald Leader, The Huntsville Times, and The Waltonian. Would anyone care to opine whether United Church of Christ has a reputation for inaccuracy? Or offer opinions about (understandably) Christian reviews such as that offered by The Rubicon? The article could definitely benefit from some judicious editing and proper sourcing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- The sources are definitely something. I'm not sure that reviews in a college newspaper, two relatively small city local newspapers, a blog, and a church demnomination online newsletter get it over the hump of WP:GNG, though. This is especially so considering that WP:NF's implementation of WP:GNG seems to indicate that the types of multiple sources required to meet notability in this context are of a degree far more significant than appears here. Despite the snarkiness of the comment above, one need not accuse the United Church of Christ of inaccuracy to think that this documentary has not quite yet reached notability. Novaseminary (talk) 03:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My comment (not an !vote) above was based upon the briefest of 2-minute searches... and based upon that, I might expect that there are more available with a more diligent search. Independent documentary films, and more specially independent Christian films, do not often get covered by mainstream press... so this one actually receiving coverage in WP:Reliable sources was a pleasent surprise.[1][2]
And I might urge careful when painting a reliable source as somehow being too small to be of consequence, as even here in WP it is shown that the multiple-Pulitzer Prize-winning Lexington Herald Leader has the second largest circulation in Kentucky.... and the Huntsville Times has the third largest circulation of all 25 daily papers published in Alabama. Your descriptives toward them seem a bit dismissive.
All my original comment shows is that in a 2-minute look, I was able to find two decent and respected RS that reviewed the film significantly and in depth. No doubt there are many more. Does the GNG demand 2? 8? 16? 25? And even though it is now apparent that it does have in-depth coverage in respected reliable sources, my further thought from above was that an independent Christian documentary might have its notability also determined in context to what it is... which IS something that is encouraged by guideline. Though nice for investors, marketing and distribution for financial recoup is not and should not be the only singular indicator of note. And beyond the available reliable sources that cover it, that the United Church of Christ [3] (not exactly a tiny backwater cult) thinks the film is notable enough to review is indeed worth consideration, as might be reviews in other Christian publications... though these are perhaps given lesser weight... Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Fair enough. I didn't mean to belittle or be dismissive of any of the sources. Indeed, I don't intend to belittle the documentary, either. It looks rather interesting (but my opinion on that is irrelevant). "A film may be brilliantly created and acted, fascinating and topical, while still not being notable enough..." says WP:NF. My only point is that despite what appears to have been some good effort at sourcing in the article itself, there is still limited coverage of the documentary. (As an aside, I find it curious that the documentary has an article, its creator has an article, but the group covered does not even though the group has received the sort of coverage that would easily make them notable under WP:ORG or Wp:GNG.) If there is any reason at all to have WP:NF -- and maybe there is not -- I think the guideline indicates the coverage produced so far is too thin. WP isn't the IMDB or Netflix. Some non-trivial national coverage (even if not in a secular paper, but in one or two of the major Chirstian news magazines) or several more local pieces would get it there in my book. Maybe they will be uncovered. Novaseminary (talk) 13:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [4] seems like notable coverage to me. Dream Focus 16:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is, of course, the same Lexington Herald Leader article mentioned above, which is undoubtedly a good RS. I wonder for those who think one regional review is enough, though, is there any point in WP:NF requiring at least two national-level reviews? If WP:NF serves any purpose, it would seem to be to guide this kind of discussion. Other than Schmidt's suggestion that this guideline is too strict for Christian and other more targeted documentaries, nobody has put forth any reason to disregard WP:NF. Further to Schmidt's suggestion, such an exception for determining notability within a niche (though Christian documentary is a really big niche) would seem to create an exception to WP:NF that would swallow the rule. Novaseminary (talk) 18:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And without doing more digging (yet), I can still point out the above proffered Hunstville Times... so that makes at least two good RS without my having (yet) spent the time looking for 3 or 4 or 7 or 10. The "attributes" that suggest two "national" reviews are written as just that... suggestions to encourage searches, and not as mandates to exclude content... with an unfortunate bias that often acts dismissive of films of certain genres or from certain geographic locales. Use of common sense is not asking anyone to ignore or disregard those suggestions, but only to undertand that they are not mandates... they are guides. And even if determined notable only to Christians in the American South through The United Church of Christ review and the papers serving Kentucky and Alabama, that should be enough of a presumption of notability for en.Wikipedia to allow it to remain and be further improved. With respects, you sent the article to AFD less than three days after it was created. It has potential for improvement. Reviews in RS are available. Is there some hurry to remove it, rather than allowing it be improved over time and through regular editing so as to better serve the project? Come back to it in six months. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To Novaseminary: The guideline pages are changed constantly by whatever small group wants to camp there and argue nonstop with everyone else to get their way. Also they are suggestions, not absolute rules like the policies are suppose to be. AFDs are decided by consensus of whoever is around at the time to argue in them, and the opinions of the closing administrators. Dream Focus 06:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All fair points, though if Dream Focus has such a low opinion of the guideline editing process, I wonder why Dream feels better about the AfD process. (FWIW, WP:NF's edit history seems fairly stable.) As to Schmidt's question, part of the "hurry" to remove the page is that it might have been created to promote the documentary rather than merely to cover it. The creating editor's edit history (to date) hints at as much, especially coupled with the fact that the article was previously speedy deleted for being a promotional piece on the same day that the only other article this editor has created, Jamie Moffett, was also speedily deleted (and was created for promotion purposes as evidenced by the talk page which was preserved). Finally, to the third (and only other) article this editor has even edited, Shane Claiborne, the editor added an EL to the documentary's website. Of course, the article could have been created with a huge COI as a complete promotional piece, and that wouldn't alone be enough to delete an article (rather than salvage it) if the subject is notable. If what is sourced on this article now (assuming it is the entirety of what can be found) is not enough to keep the article, though, I would not assume other good sources are out there until they are shown in this instance. Novaseminary (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clean up and continue improvements to this fledgling article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 11:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but expand the article on its main subject, Shane Claiborne. WP has too many articles about sources and not enough about the real-world topics the sources cover. The mere fact that someone made a documentary film is not notable. Probably most of WP's articles about documentary films and non-fiction books should be deleted per WP:Coatrack. Kitfoxxe (talk) 11:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch. With respects Kitfoxxe, ignoring the filmmaker Jamie Moffett and then asserting that only one of the film's two subjects might merit expansion of an article seems an unbalanced suggestion. Further, it is not being asserted that simply "because" "someone" made a documentary it might be automatically notable... quite the opposite. It is being asserted that coverage in relible sources shows notability per WP:NF. I do admit to being quite confused by your summation that many articles on already proven-as-notable documentaries and/or non-fiction books should be deleted under an inapplicable essay... as this seems a bit of personal POV. Notability is notability. Inclusion of films in Wikipedia is not just about those films that have huge budgets, major stars, or accomplished publicity departments. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:13, 26 April 2010 (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.