Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aimee Semple McPherson (film)

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 delete. Jeez, what a mess. The sole registered user arguing to keep, ProfessorClaudele does not understand WP:NFILM. However, neither does the nominator, Shearonink, who is attempting to rebut arguments with stuff like the Christianity Today review...that was a 2-star review out of a possible 4. The critical reception of a film has no bearing on its notability, or else we wouldn't have an article for The Happening. However, there are enough regulars agreeing with some of the deletion argument to form a consensus.

ProfessorClaudele, just because there does not appear to be a consensus to keep this article doesn't mean that you can't merge the most significant information to Aimee_Semple_McPherson#Works_about_McPherson to support a short-but-meaty paragraph over there. If you would like me to reproduce the article into your userspace to facilitate that just let me know. A Train^talk 08:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aimee Semple McPherson (film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Fails WP:NFOE (*was not widely distributed, *has not received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics, *not historically notable [no publication of at least two non-trivial articles 5 years after release], *has not received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking, etc.). Fails WP:NFSOURCES (no significant coverage). Shearonink (talk) 03:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shearonink (talk) 18:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guidelines for films.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c)  13:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do not Delete~~ Was distributed widely in (Partial list) Blockbuster stores, on Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Netflix under new title "Sister Aimee: The Aimee Semple McPherson Story" Has been mentioned in mainstream newspapers more than other films with articles on Wikipedia. It is the first feature dramatic article on a major historical figure in Pentecostalism.

Being the first film about some particular segment of social history does not in and of itself make a film notable. Shearonink (talk) 01:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do not Delete~~ It was reviewed in the Moviehound Golden Retriever Movie book, in Charisma and Christianity Today leading magazines in the Christian world, and on Hollywood Jesus. Religious discrimination should not be a factor in deleting a film that is more notable than many others in Wikipedia. The film is the first dramatic film about a woman who pioneered her own denomination and was a major Hollywood and religious figure in the 20th century in Los Angeles. The following articles in the press (partial list)mention the film: East Valley Tribune: http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/get_out/finding-sister-aimee/article_22e6445a-2158-54db-a716-d79178c7df9d.html Pittsburgh Post Gazette: http://www.post-gazette.com/ae/movies/2008/05/04/Rev-Rossi-back-in-news-as-Hollywood-success-story/stories/200805040255 The film was nominated for Best Feature in Milan, Italy at the Sabaoth Film Festival. Thanks, Professor Claudele. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfessorClaudele (talk • contribs) 06:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

Being distributed on various platforms means nothing regarding Notability for film.

As to Amazon...Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #135,990 in Movies & TV.
As to Netflix....only available on DVD, not available for streaming.

Having passing mentions in various articles means nothing as to notability. The film's coverage in media mentioned above -

East Valley Tribune presently has a circulation of 140,000, in 2005 (ten years ago) I would suppose the # was lower.
The Pgh Post-Gazette is an article mostly about the producer and not about the film itself.

As to the Best Feature Nomination at the Sabaoth Film Festival...what year? any independent confirmation? Any stats on this film festival? Does Variety or Backstage or London Times or any major media or entertainment journalist report on it? (in other words, how influential is this fest...) And, oh, btw, don't try to find any info out on the Sabaoth Fest's website, it seems to possibly have been hacked - got a malware warning.

As to the Christianity Today review...that was a 2-star review out of a possible 4.
As to Ref #1....why is that ref even in there? The article is a profile of Kathie Lee Gifford's Broadway production and contains a mere mention of the movie - it only serves to date the movie to 2006, it is not in-depth.
WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST and asserting "religious discrimination" does not help to bolster this movie's notability.
This movie is not the first about Aimee Semple McPherson, that would be 1976's "The Disappearance of Aimee", a movie which starred 2 Academy Award winners - Bette Davis and Faye Dunaway - and which was directed by Michael Harvey, an Academy-Award nominated film director.

This film, on its own merits, fails every aspect of notability. Some of the content could possibly be merged into Rossi's article but keeping in mind Wikipedia's guidelines for notability I remain convinced that this article should be deleted. Shearonink (talk) 19:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Shearonink (UTC) negates her own flawed arguments for deletion by contradictory statements. For example, in her first post she argues that the film "was not widely distributed." When this falsehood was refuted with information that the film was distributed on Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Netflix, etc... she argues the opposite point in her second post above that being widely distributed "means nothing." And then adds that the film was distributed on DVD on Netflix, but not streaming? Seriously? A second example of the self-contradictory logic in this request is in her first post she cites a lack of reviews. Then when reviews are presented, she replies that Christianity Today's review was "two stars out of four." So the standard is always altered in favor of a confirmation bias towards deletion, rather than an internal consistency of argument with objectivity. A third example of the flawed and inconsistent logic is when her first post mentions a lack of articles from notable newspapers, when articles are cited, she says, yes but the article covers Rossi and mentions the film without focusing exclusively on the film. To any objective observer, one can see the lines are drawn then erased and redrawn. Above a false claim is made that "The Disappearance of Aimee" was the first film of Aimee Semple McPherson's life, which was a TV presentation focused solely on the dramatization of the 1927 morals trial of McPherson. Rossi's film is the first feature biographical film covering her entire life from 1912-1944. Do not Delete Additionally, Wikipedia rules governing deletion state clearly: The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following: Point 3 The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release. The screening at Milan film festival Saboath was in 2011, 5 years after its release. Link: http://celebritypictures.wiki/celebrity/744302/748408 The question is asked if Backstage has reported on the film. The article on the film itself has a link to a Backstage article that talks about the film and Rossi's artistic integrity in refusing money to alter the truth of his film.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfessorClaudele (talk • contribs) 08:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being "widely distributed" is meaningless without some context. How many downloads were there? How many DVDs were sold? How many screenings were sold-out? etc.

It isn't up to any single editor for deletion or inclusion - the only thing that matters here is editorial consensus, what does the interested and commenting editorial community have to say regarding the film's notability and depending on Wikipedia's guidelines for those thoughts.

Re: "Milan Sabaoth Film Festival" - the issue here is whether or not this particular film festival is noteworthy or notable in and of itself. There are literally thousands upon thousands upon thousands of film festivals all over the world - there are 36 different ones listed at Wikipedia's own article about Italian film festivals. I am not casting aspersions upon the Sabaoth Film Festival - I just haven't seen proof that this is a major/meaningful film festival. Some festivals are meaningful and some of them are a way for promoters to take filmmakers' money (Google "film festivals scam" and you'll see what I mean.) My point is that having an award or having a screening at any single film festival does not in and of itself prove notability - anyone can put on what they call a film festival. My only concern is if this festival has received any coverage in industry press, or in any other media - other than its own press releases or its own website.

Re: the celebritypictures linkage... It's a photo. With little context.

The Backstage article is about an actor (not affiliated with the Aimee Semple McPherson film), mentions Mr. Rossi in passing and has some interview bits from him but to me does not bolster claims about the film's notability.

Anyway, my thoughts are still for Delete. Shearonink (talk) 19:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Film mentioned in Ministries today (Dec. 2005), Film Threat magazine (2006), Charisma Magazine (October, 2005), East Valley Tribune (August 27, 2005) Hollywood Reporter and Variety production listings (2004-2005), InMag (Spring, 2005), Hollywood Jesus (2005), imdb.com, ZReview, movietome.com, and other publications cited on reviews and links at aimeesemplemcphersonmovie.com. This is the only feature dramatic film to explore Aimee McPherson's significance to evangelism and the history of Los Angeles. To delete is to miss the larger issues of the work.

Its at imdb The film has a few name actors in it, such as Rance Howard, father of Ron Howard. Cast members such as Rance Howard, Kiera Chaplin (granddaughter of Charlie Chaplin), Carl Ballantine, Richard Rossi, and the other lead Mimi Michaels who portrays Aimee Semple McPherson have their own Wikipedia pages. So in addition to other reasons, it's at IMDb, it's got a notable actor, a notable actor, a notable actor, a notable actor, a notable actor it's reviewed here and here.

It was apparently noteworthy enough to the SAG, Screen Actors Guild to have a special screening there. (See above review at Hollywood Jesus)

~~Keep~~ per IMDb, SAG, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfessorClaudele (talk • contribs) 06:5917 October 2017 (UTC)

ProfessorClaudele - Please sign your posts on Wikipedia's talkpages. At the end of your post is where you put the four tildes -> ~~~~ and WP will automatically sign for you.

A "special SAG screening" only means that there were SAG members in the movie and that it was screened at their union's theater. It does not necessarily convey aspects of notability to have a movie "screened at SAG". SAG (then) and SAG-AFTRA (now) probably screens hundreds of movies in a year - it's a simple courtesy to their members. The HollywoodJesus.com review also mentions that "there are no plans as of yet for a theatrical release". How can a movie that never received a theatrical release, regardless of its good intentions, be considered notable especially considering the timeframe of 2004/5/6.

Being listed at IMDb in and of itself does not convey notability. There are over 382,000 features listed at IMDb, over 1 million dramas, 694,485 shorts...etc. ( see [1]). Besides, per WP:RS/IMDB IMDb is not considered a reliable source since it is user-generated + the WP essay WP:CITEIMDB + WP:EL/P#IMDb. Shearonink (talk) 22:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The SAG screening was not just a screening of a film at their theater. It was chosen to be part of that years SAG Conversations for notable films and actors. From SAG website: "The Conversations program offers free screenings followed by inspiring Q&As with leading actors and casts, as well as Career Retrospectives with preeminent actors who explore the process and profession with an audience of fellow artists. Conversations focus on personal experiences and artistic influences that inform and shape careers; discuss current and past projects; share valuable insights into the craft and industry; and preserve creative legacies." Here is a link to that event, SAG Conversations honoring the film with not just a screening, but a discussion by the filmmaker and some cast and crew taking questions from the audience of SAG union members: https://members.sagfoundation.org/events/550 ProfessorClaudele (talk) 06:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For future posts it would be helpful if your statements asserting your claims of notability also had their references/sources posted with them when you first make these statements. You stated the movie "had a SAG screening" but neglected initially to also provide a cite as well as to fully describe the event. Shearonink (talk) 06:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hopefully we can get more outside participation?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 05:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM. Being available on Amazon is not evidence of "wide distribution", and in any case, the release wasn't accompanied by "full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics". Betty Logan (talk) 19:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the "keep" proponent hasn't offered any rationale grounded in Wikipedia policies or guidelines why this article should be kept. The strongest argument, to me, seems to be the full-length review in Christianity Today, but this still fails to satisfy the WP:NFILM criterion of having "full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics". ~Anachronist (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "keep" proponent offers rationale grounded in Wikipedia policies and guidelines why this article should be kept, satisfying the WP:NFILM criterion of having "full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics".. This film in addition to the Christianity Today review, is reviewed here by Ted Baer at Movieguide (full length review): https://www.movieguide.org/reviews/aimee-semple-mcpherson.html and again here by Chris Gore at Film Threat: http://filmthreat.com/uncategorized/aimee-semple-mcpherson/ ProfessorClaudele (talk • contribs) 12:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I removed your lengthy excerpts; we can read the links. These are nationally known critics? There isn't even a byline on either of those articles. Also, I have struck out your first "keep" vote above. Only one vote per user, please. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There have been other notable films about Pentacostalism, like Marjoe (which won an Academy Award for Best Documentary), Robert Duvall's The Apostle,

- ~~the God's Generals series~~ UPDATE: SORRY, MY mistake, I looked at the BOOKS (which are at #46,491 in Books on Amazon) Shearonink (talk) 02:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC) -[reply]

but maybe being the first "based on a true story"/somewhat-biographical film about a "major historical figure in Pentecostalism" doesn't mean that the project itself is necessarily notable. Shearonink (talk) 01:46, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The two reviews above are nationally known, Ted Baer writes reviews for his site Movie Guide and Chris Gore for Film Threat. 76.175.21.114 (talk) 07:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This commenter clearly has a conflict of interest, and based on contribution history, is probably Richard Rossi, the director of the film we're discussing. If you have a COI, you should disclose it. I also don't see anywhere that says Ted Baehr wrote this review, or that Chris Gore wrote this review (it was more likely one of the staff). Both may as well have been written by anonymous authors. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No COI, I do follow Mr. Rossi's work and story as a native Pittsburgher who finds it interesting as a life trajectory of someone native to my hometown. I wouldn't want to stoop to accusations of COI on the other side, but this thread does seem to set up arbitrary judgments against this film, then when it is demonstrated the film meets the criteria the interpretation of the rules are modified in subsequent posts as has been mentioned before and the criteria changed. The application does seem to be slanted unfairly with a COI against Rossi and the film, by those trying to delete. Most recently 'God's Generals' is cited as an important Pentecostal film, which has unlike Rossi's film, not screened anywhere, not been reviewed, and is a a video of a disgraced minister who was found to be sexually involved with a young male youth worker, just talking into the camera as a talking head about people like Aimee Semple McPherson, and is not a feature dramatic film anywhere near Rossi's work from any objective measure.76.175.21.114 (talk) 23:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Dude...seriously, step back and don't mischaracterize other editors' statements. And, if you really don't want to stoop?... then don't. Let me lay it out for you...there have been other notable productions about pentecostal subjects (I've corrected my mistake on God's Generals above). That clear enough? And stop with the mudslinging, it doesn't help your cause. Shearonink (talk) 02:55, 24 October 2017 (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.