Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ocean of Tears

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 keep. No consensus to delete this one at all. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean of Tears[edit]

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

Ocean of Tears (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)

The article fails WP:Notability (films), The film itself did not receive any awards or major coverage in the reliable media to make it notable, even after 6 years of release. The trivial mention in few articles fails WP:NOTNEWS as well DBigXrayᗙ 20:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 20:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 20:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article cites sufficient coverage of the fallout from its being banned at the University of Kashmir to indicate notability; coverage also includes discussion of the film's content. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:10, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are several articles from newspapers, including the Hindu and Times of India, and I found mention in "Filming Reality: The Independent Documentary Movement in India" via google books; plenty to expand the article with. Curdle (talk) 05:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A terrible nomination. The film has received ample coverage in mainstream Indian media; see the following articles for starters:

Therefore, the requirements of the aforementioned notability guidelines are indisputably satisfied. One can find plenty more articles out there. Kerberous (talk) 09:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The notability criteria for films require WP:NFILMS which is more than just routine mention. --DBigXrayᗙ 10:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Analysis of all references from the article as well as those presented in this AfD with the WP:GNG criteria
Source Significant? Independent? Reliable? Secondary? Pass/Fail Notes
The Hindu Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Red XN Interview of the director. ( First person, Primary source) WP:ROUTINE coverage as expected during the launch of movies. WP:NOTNEWS
Filming Reality Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN 2 paragraph coverage that is not enough to call significant coverage
greater kashmir Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Published in the "Curtain Raiser" section of the newspaper. 2 para WP:ROUTINE coverage. possible promo in regional newspaper. WP:NOTNEWS
Samaylive Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Article published during the release of movie in 2012 and covers the documentary and its controversy
Kashmir times Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Short article WP:ROUTINE coverage of the controversy with release. no coverage of the movie. WP:NOTNEWS
The Times of India Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Short article WP:ROUTINE coverage of the controversy with release. no coverage of the movie. WP:NOTNEWS
Tehelka ? Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY ? article that partly covers the film and partly the release controversy.
Times of India Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Article that only covers the release controversy. fails WP:NOTNEWS
Firstpost Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Red XN 2013 article Directors Interview ( First person, Primary source) and covers the release controversy
Greater Kashmir Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Red XN Interview of the director. ( First person, Primary source) WP:ROUTINE coverage as expected during the launch of movies. WP:NOTNEWS
DNA Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN 2012 article covers the release controversy
dailyexcelsior Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN 2012 article covers the release controversy
Total qualifying sources 1? There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements
Analysis of criteria for NFILMS
Criteria Result Pass/Fail
The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. not distributed and no full length reviews Red XN
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. no non trivial article on movie Red XN
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. not deemed notable by broad survey Red XN
The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release. No commercial re-release Red XN
The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema. not featured Red XN
The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.[3] no award Red XN
The film was selected for preservation in a national archive. Not selected Red XN
The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program. not taught Red XN
Inclusionary criteria
The film represents a unique accomplishment in cinema, is a milestone in the development of film art, or contributes significantly to the development of a national cinema, No unique accomplishment Red XN
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. No notable person Red XN
The film was successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film producing country, and was produced by that country's equivalent of a "major film studio." not distributed successfully anywhere Red XN
Total qualifying criteria 0 There must be qualifying criteria to meet the NFILMS notability requirements
--DBigXrayᗙ 10:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Plenty of reliable, independent sources indicate notability. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - having been banned by a prominent university indicates that the film meets the general notability guideline, and both the film and the incident are described by reliable sources. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cwmhiraeth and other folks, I hope you all are aware that a decent and major portion of the budget of "film production" is set aside and spent on the WP:PROMO/ publicity / PR, so one has to be careful in deciding notability and not use PR pieces as denoting notability. The news on films about to be released gets published in the newspapers that are "reliable" and "independent" of the film company and yet that WP:ROUTINE coverage does not qualify for notability. Same with the case with films that do not get released, they the ban generates controversy and find their way into newspapers, such news articles are ROUTINE news and cannot be considered WP:SIGCOV as they violate WP:NOTNEWS. SIGCOV states that "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are  independent of the subject".
  • WP:NFILMS is specifically decided so as to help AfD contributors judge these films by laying down criteria. An argument that any "political film that is banned in a university" is notable, is kind of a strange arguement that flies in the face of NFILMS here. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Special notability guidelines, such as NFILMS, are alternatives to the basic general notability guideline;meeting general notability through widespread in-depth coverage in reliable sources is sufficient. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yngvadottir I have already covered GNG in my source table. Can you point me which are those "multiple significant coverage sources" that you believe are meeting GNG here. I will be happy to withdraw the nomination if I feel the GNG is met. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:30, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't dispute that films spend significant budget on promotion, but suggesting they would purposely spent money to get the production banned in various places is patently absurd. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ivanvector. I am not saying that this film producers asked to ban the movie. But a film that gets banned, automatically gets free promotions in the news, they don't really have to spend a lot thereafter, and they still can if they want to further increase the coverage of the ban news. Not saying that this is the case here, but FYI in India there are several instances of film production houses that use controversy as a way of WP:PROMO.
In any case, we should be able to differentiate between regular WP:ROUTINE coverage vs significant & unbiased coverage of a notable film. Plenty of insignificant and routine coverage does not count for GNG. I am still waiting for the folks above to present reliable source that can pass our WP:GNG or WP:NFILM criteria. --DBigXrayᗙ 17:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I managed to find more of the book ref; if you access "Filming Reality: The Independent Documentary Movement in India" through google books, you only get the first two paragraphs on page 255; however, go through google scholar and you can see that the coverage is rather more. It extends through 256 (not viewable) and halfway through page 257. So its definately significant coverage. May take a few days to get actual scans of the book though.
There is also a short mention in "Mobilizing Conflict Testimony: A Lens of Mobility for the Study of Documentary Practices in the Kashmir Conflict" in Social sciences from 2017 (https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/6/3/88/htm). Curdle (talk) 21:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the links. We will have to actually read the source for making a decision if it passes the "significance" threshold. The second link you gave is only a 1 line mention that is considered "passing mention" and far from being significant. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:46, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Chetsford The table clearly shows that NFILM criterias are not met, can you clarify your vote ? --DBigXrayᗙ 05:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and sorry, that was a typo. I meant to say GNG. I agree, NFILM is not met. Chetsford (talk) 05:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Chetsford, You are welcome. Can you name the sources that you are referring to pass GNG. GNG required multiple sources with significant coverage. as shown in my ref table, this is lacking as well. --DBigXrayᗙ 05:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I find that the non-interview (expository) portion of this article in The Hindu [1], combined with this feature on Firstpost [2], the paragraph in The Telegraph (Calcutta) here [3], this feature in The Citizen [4] (an outlet which, upon examination, appears to meet RS), two pages in a SAGE Publications book Filming Reality: The Independent Documentary Movement in India, an article in the Kashmir Times [5], and this article (not on the film itself but on critical reaction to the film) in the Times of India [6], to be, in total, indicative of a breadth of significant coverage in reliable sources. Chetsford (talk) 05:49, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Chetsford Thanks for linking the sources, please see my comments on each of your links.
  • The Hindu [7], report is entirely an Interview of the director, A primary source, cant be used for notability.
  • Firstpost [8], Has only 2 para (4 line) coverage of the film, rest is news of the release controversy, 2 para isnt siignificant coverage.
  • The Telegraph (Calcutta) here [9], has a 2 line passing mention.
  • The Citizen [10] is not a reliable mainstream source.
  • SAGE Publications [11]book has only 2 para visible, we will have to actually see the pages to make a decision if it passes SIGCOV.
  • an article in the Kashmir Times [12], has the interview of director and covers the release controversy. Does Not significantly cover the film.
  • Times of India [13] has nothing to do with coverage of the film but only talks about a law and order incident related to the screening. Not Significant coverage of the film.
So none of these sources show a clear passing of WP:GNG. --DBigXrayᗙ 06:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In response:
  • report is entirely an Interview of the director, A primary source, cant be used for notability You'll note that I said "the non-interview (expository) portion of this article." If you're going to ask me to write a customized rationale, please take the time to read it and write a customized response instead of copy/pasting what you've written previously when it doesn't apply to my specific reasoning.
  • various notes about coverage being regarding controversy and not the film itself - this is irrelevant for GNG; the general notability guidelines don't demand coverage of any particular aspect of a topic, only that it is wide and not routine
  • book has only 2 para visible, we will have to actually see the pages to make a decision if it passes SIGCOV I have access to the book other than through the Google Books preview. It's two pages.
  • is not a reliable mainstream source - Yes, it is. It has a physical presence by which it can be held legally liable for what it publishes, it has a gatekeeping process, and its reporting has been referenced by unambiguously reliable sources (I quickly found references in two Springer Publishing books). The fact the editor is a CPIM partisan doesn't matter since the CPIM is a mainstream party in India (based solely on a definition of mainstream judged by the consistent presence of parliamentary seats). To overcome a prima facia appearance of reliability you'd need to make a specific and targeted argument instead of dismissal by assertion, though RSN would be the best place to do it.
Chetsford (talk) 06:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Hindu [14] has only 4 sentences as part of the non interview coverage of the film. fails sigcov.
  • IMHO the controversy coverage and law & order related news, fails WP:NOTNEWS, we can agree to disagree here.
  • Chetsford can you email me the screenshots of the book, to review.--DBigXrayᗙ 06:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By my count it has 11 sentences that are neither direct nor indirect quotes. An eleven sentence article is about par with a précis which is fine. NOTNEWS has to do with breaking news, not news of any kind. If it did, there would be no WP articles on things like the Syrian Civil War or Assassination of John F. Kennedy. Vis a vis the book, I'll be happy to. I should be able to scan it tomorrow and will email it. Chetsford (talk) 06:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you discount the direct interview quotes from the director, The Hindu [15] article has 3 sentences talking about the release controversy and 4 sentences talking about the content of the movie. This is far from the 11 sentence that you are claiming, perhaps you have mistakenly counted directors quotes as coverage of the movie. Clearly 4 sentences is far short of the coverage that can be called as significant. Thanks for agreeing to share the screenshots, I am looking forward for it. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The controversy stuff makes it pass GNG even though it would fail the SNG for films. It may be a bit marginal; the depth of this coverage isn't impressive but it seems within bounds. NB: I don't side with the idea that simply getting perfunctory reviews establishes notability. The average newspaper in an area is going to review every single film that hits cinemas in that area, and content of such reviews is actually primary sourcing (the personal viewpoint of the reviewer), despite being in a publication that contains a lot of secondary material. So, my rationale has nothing to do with reviews. The nominator has made a fundamental error here in believing that the notability of a WP article on a work is tied directly and only to RS coverage of the work's content and/or production. This just isn't the case.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    SMcCandlish just because your opinion on notability differs from another editor, does not make his decision "a fundamental error". Your keep vote is based on the premise that "this controversy is enough 'controversy'". Well I differ, Just because a political documentary was not allowed to be played in a university or a particular cinema hall, and that news was published in the regional newspapers does not automagically mean it has become notable. I am not sure if you are aware of controversy as a PR but check these links out. And I hope you will be able to appreciate the fact that the controversy created by the below movies is on a much larger scale, than "ruckus in a college or a cinema hall".
    You can check the names of any movie in that list and you will find detailed and coverage of the controversies spread over large period of time that is not failed by WP:NOTNEWS criteria, whereas the subject of this AfD althoufh did produce some controversy failed to generate enough controversy that will allow it to pass the threshold of WP:NOTNEWS--DBigXrayᗙ 20:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
More WP:BLUDGEON stuff ...
  • Nope. You've repeatedly argued (at way too much length, with too much repetition, and without paying attention to what people are actually saying) that sources about the controversy are not relevant because they're about the controversy surrounding the film's screening instead of about the film per se. That is a fundamental error in policy interpretation, sorry. I have no idea what your "opinion on notability" is, so my observing this as nothing do with a difference of opinion on notability. (My own is published in detail here.) You're advancing a different argument now, that the material on the controversy isn't substantial enough, not that it isn't relevant. (I.e., you appear to have taken my critique and accepted it and changed your position; so, feel free to strike or revise your earlier material dismissing those sources as categorically non-pertinent). I didn't say anything about "automatic" anything. I actually looked at the source material, and it appears (perhaps barely) sufficient.

    I don't care (or care to keep discussing) that your view of the matter differs; this is not a forum for endless debate, it's a simple process in which people present rationales and move on. It's fine to ask a question, or point out a policy error, or whatever (some AfD !votes really don't make sense, e.g. at an ongoing one about an alleged dog breed), but an endless litany of disagreement that simply re-re-re-states the same arguments you've already made and which others are not buying simply isn't constructive; see Proof by assertion. E.g., it's already been pointed out to you that you are citing NOTNEWS wrong; it is about breaking news and the fact that WP doesn't exist for that purpose (and isn't written in news style); it has nothing to do with using news publications as sources. Finally, I have no idea what point you're trying to make in observing that other films were even more controversial. If I have a small pizza and you have a huge pizza, I still have a pizza. You don't get to personally decide what "failed to generate enough controversy"; that's what the collective input at AfD does when something's notability may hinge on controversy.
     — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is another problem with some folks who mistake a reasonable debate with bludgeoning. Both are different. If you dislike so much, your comments being replied to, why participate in the first place ? --DBigXrayᗙ 21:03, 19 November 2018 (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/Ocean_of_Tears&oldid=993537240"