Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Cowgirl's Story

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 no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. - Ad Orientem (talk) 02:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Cowgirl's Story[edit]

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

A Cowgirl's Story (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)

Non notable film, article has only one citation which doesn't strongly support article as a whole AutumnKing (talk) 16:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Delition Not enough sources(i've found two others, they are on the talk page). No press releases or books mention the film.Timur9008 (talk) 19:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Deletion the article exceeds the standard of many other direct-to-video film articles, tv movie and family film articles I've seen. There are so many horror films with articles of even lower quality. If you're going to delete this it should only be part of a larger policy. You really need to set some standards and guidelines and apply them consistently because there are so many articles far worse than this one. It should be more than enough to WP:VERIFY the film, and requiring articles such as these prove some arbitrary definition of WP:NOTABLE is too high a bar for most non-theatrically released films. A small short article isn't necessarily a bad thing. -- 109.79.80.26 (talk) 22:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly meets WP:FILM. Sheldybett (talk) 09:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. So far, the arguments to Keep vary between WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OSE. Yet, subject fails WP:NFILM, and specifically WP:NFO, which is quite clear: The film must have been widely distributed and received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics; historically notable; given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release; featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema; received a major award for excellence; selected for preservation in a national archive; or taught as a subject at an accredited university. Editors who support Keep are invited to point out spefically which of these criteria and exactly how are satisfied. Wikipedia is not the Catalogue of All Movies Ever Released. -The Gnome (talk) 20:02, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is an incorrect interpretation of WP:NFILM. If a film meets one or more of the above quoted list of criteria it is very likely to be notable and pass WP:GNG but it can pass GNG without meeting any of the criteria, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Read again, please, the opening paragraph of WP:NFILM (with my emphasis added) and see for yourself if WP:GNG on its own suffices for films: For the majority of topics related to film, the criteria established at the general notability guideline aka GNG is sufficient to follow. This guideline, i.e. WP:NFILM, which is specific to the subject of film, explains GNG as it applies to film and also takes into consideration other core Wikipedia policies and guidelines as they apply to determining stand-alone articles for films. In so many words, WP:NFILM was created above and beyond GNG, which alone is no longer sufficient. And if Wikipedia articles about films have been allowed in the past to stay up on the basis of GNG only, past indiscretions are not a valid reason for their continuation. Once again, then, contributors to the AfD are invited to point out which, if any, criteria delineated in WP:NFO are satisfied. I quoted them above. -The Gnome (talk) 09:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're mistaken, read WP:NFO: "topic related to film may not meet the criteria of the general notability guideline, but significant coverage is not always possible to find on the Internet, especially for older films. The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist:The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.
The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:
Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.
The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.[2]
The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.
The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.
The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.[3]
The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.[4]
The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.
These criteria are presented as rules of thumb for easily identifying films that Wikipedia should probably have articles about that. In almost all cases, a thorough search for independent, third-party reliable sources will be successful for a film meeting one or more of these criteria. However, meeting these criteria is not an absolute guarantee that Wikipedia should have a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to the film." In other words the criteria are a guide for determining WP:GNG not inclusion criteria in and of themselves, please confirm with the wikiProject Film members if you are still unsure, or any admin should Know as well, GNG always applies independently to SNGs except WP:CORPDEPTH in terms of companies and organisations. Atlantic306 (talk) 16:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. This should be debated elsewhere. To move on with this AfD, we accept that WP:GNG applies first and then, if necessary, we look into WP:NFILM. Clearly, the subject of this article fails WP:NFILM. I already listed the specific demands in NFILM and invited participants to indicate which NFILM criterion is satisfied. So far, no takers. Let's proceed on the basis of GNG.
This well known guideline states: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article. So, where is the significant coverage? Where are the reliable sources? We have
  1. a rather obscure publication about horse breeding (here)
  2. two articles in Deadline Hollywood but they are about Bailee Madison and Chloe Lukasiak, two actresses in the film rather than about the film itself
  3. same goes for the report in the International Business Times
  4. a press release, for crying out loud, here by a press release agency, PR Newswire;
  5. a portrait of Colandod Scott here in Tennessee Valley's Times Daily;
and then a couple of reviews from the usual suspects, i.e. Common Sense Media, the organization promoting family values, and Family Home Theater, another organization with the same agenda.
If editors assess all that as significant coverage in reliable sources then we live in different worlds. -The Gnome (talk) 07:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment there is one reliable sources review from Commonsense Media referenced in the article but more is needed, will look later Atlantic306 (talk) 22:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Atlantic306 is right. Meeting GNG is sufficient for notability. Subject-specific guidelines, such as WP:NFILM are useful for extended ways to meet notability; however, none are requirements to meet notability. dawnleelynn(talk) 01:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC) P.S. Let me point out that the subject-specific guideline for film was created as a short essay on July 5, 2006. Prior to that, editors were quite capably establishing notability for films with just GNG. dawnleelynn(talk) 02:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input dawnleelynn. Please check out my response to Atlantic306. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 09:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the response. It was my mistake not to list the policy. Per the GNG, "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right;..." GNG is the dominant policy over any SNG; meaning that an SNG cannot overrule the GNG and claim that its criteria is required over that of the GNG; the GNG states either one or the other is acceptable. dawnleelynn(talk) 18:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I didn't add a shortcut because it's right near the top. dawnleelynn(talk) 03:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please clarify your suggestion, dawnleelynn? Are you supporting Keep or Delete? Thanks. -The Gnome (talk) 07:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good question, The Gnome. It was an oppose against deleting the article based only on the article's sources. A pass should be made for outside sources. In fact, I will do one a bit later. I'll change my decision if I don't find enough. dawnleelynn(talk) 17:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are some external sources I found: Reviews - [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Trailers - [7], [8]. For Sale sites - [9], [10], [11], [12]. Rentals - [13], [14], and [15]. Misc - [16]. Interviews - [17] and [18]. I will disregard any that are not relevant if pointed out to me. dawnleelynn(talk) 20:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Letterboxd is just a message board with public input ("a social network for grass-roots film discussion"), like reddit (see WP:ABOUTSELF); we've already been through Horse Nation ("an obscure publication about horse breeding") and Family Choice, an organization with the same agenda as CSM; then, there's this link taking us to the personal blog of an Evangelical, self-help promoter; and a simple listing in Moviefone, which lists everything. Trailers and sales ads are of course irrelevant to notability. And the Bailee Madison interviews are about, well, Bailee Madison and not the film. I've already checked all these links; they do not by any means constitute evidence of notability. -The Gnome (talk) 05:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point on most of the links. However, I did look at the interviews. The short one at Tigerbeat is three actors talking about their parts in the movie. In the longer interview with Bailey, there is a good portion where she discusses the movie. So, in the two links you didn't mention, I gather they may attribute some to notability, the Fandango link and the filmmuscreporter announcing the soundtrack. The movie rental links I also didn't see specifically mentioned but they are probably the same as the sale links I'm thinking. So we have at most 4 links in this bunch. But to be clear, the rest of the links out there are just more of the same really, not anything more that is notable. Put these four with what's in the article, and what do we have? This is why I think it's good to do the search so we can say the subject is notable or not based on all the sources, internal and external. This is what GNG says.dawnleelynn(talk) 21:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The similarity of the texts of the various mentions strongly sugegsts an advertorial process, with an agenda behind it. This is fake notability. -The Gnome (talk) 06:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, first of all, I read about the advertorial process and it's all about print no mention of online. So, I have a question, this is a direct to dvd movie. What review sites would you expect to see it on to be notable? I see it is on Rotten Tomatoes, but I am puzzled why it's an external link. I am familiar with roger ebert's site, new york times, variety, the guardian, cinemablend, rollingstone, filmsite, metacritic, hollywoodreporter, pluggedin as examples.
Ok, other notes, I don't think other editors who commented in the first discussion realize they need to comment again in this second discussion. Especially the nominator. At any rate, I looked at the sources in the article. A big issue is that the main body of the article has no sources. The article is also still tagged as a stub but it's larger than a stub now. Per the deletion process, which asks us if we can keep it as as stub, no argument can be made to keep it as a stub now. The deletion process asks us to consider if it could be kept with clean up tags as well. But there is no point to tagging it with refimprove since we have searched for the external sources and find there is not enough. Sources about the actors would be welcome in an article that had a well rounded discussion of the movie and sources for it; but that is not the case here. Is this a fair assessment? dawnleelynn(talk) 18:25, 16 August 2019 (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/A_Cowgirl%27s_Story&oldid=911474601"