Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Coven (film)

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. Nakon 03:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Coven (film)[edit]

The Coven (film) (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)

Author contested PROD, but concern is still seem to be noticeable ToonLucas22 (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


The following explains why additional material has been added and why this film should have an article on Wikipedia. The authors of the article are not linked to the film makers but are Wiccans. The Coven is an important film within the Wiccan community as it accurately reflects real events. Additionally as it presents Cochranianism as the normative form of Wicca it is likely to be the subject of debate for the foreseeable future. This debate has commenced with two significant groups posting reviews. The first is the Pagan Federation, a group with many Gardnerian members and the UKs largest pagan organisation. The second is the Order of the Horse and the Moon, the most active Cochranian group in the UK. The links to the reviews are below.

http://london.paganfed.org/the-coven/

https://ootham.wordpress.com/reading/the-coven-2015/

The film is likely to be reviewed negatively by the Gardnerian Wiccan community and positively by Cochranian Wiccans. This Wikipedia page attempts to provide unbiased detail. This page has been produced Wiccan insiders. It has no connection to the film’s producers or promoters who are unknown to the Wiccan community and appear to be very small scale. This page was, however, produced by Cochranian Wiccans so bias may occur. None the less this is an important film that merits detail on Wikipedia. Additional details will be added to the page to provide information on the key issues.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cochranefaithful (talk • contribs)

  • Delete: Does not seem to meet WP:GNG. Does not appear to be significant enough to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability_(films)#Other_evidence_of_notability. IMDb's page for the film [1] indicates it has 242 ratings, as of right now, a little over a month since release (No, IMDb is generally not a WP:RS with regard to film information because it relies on user edits (much like wikipedia does), but the low number of ratings does suggest a very small release).
In response to the claim brought up by Cochranefaithful that it is an important film within the Wiccan community, I admit I am not too familiar with either of the groups mentioned, nor the topic of Wicca. If the film is as controversial as stated, and there is wider coverage from sites other than blogs, I would likely be swayed in support of the article, but as of right now, I'm unable to find anything in publications of any kind. IMDb did list these 2 external reviews (one not in English) which may or may not be helpful [2] [3] ― Padenton |☎  21:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The film was release direct to DVD just last month. There don't appear any reliable sources to document its production or its reception. Claims that the film is important among the Cochranist community are problematic for two reasons:
    1. We have no reliable sources to verify that.
    2. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, so topics need to be generally notable, not just notable among a small community.
-- WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 03:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As stated above, we need significant coverage in reliable sources to support an article. We can't create articles with the expectation that some day in the future they will eventually attract controversy or cultural significance. It's a flawed method, but it's the best we've currently got. Unfortunately, blogs and subjective views of importance aren't really applicable to Wikipedia's inclusion criteria or guideline on notability for films. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paganism-related deletion discussions. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Just plain fails the GNG. NRP is dead on in saying that we don't create articles because someone believes the subject might be controversial. We also don't create articles so that certain parties can have an "unbiased" take on things. Wikipedia is not a web host. Nha Trang Allons! 20:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and continue cleaning it up. The poor keep argument by Cochranefaithful aside, it does seem the topic is getting coverage to meet WP:NF. I actually researched and it had some back in 2013 with release of its trailer, and has newer sources and reviews now that it has its DVD release. I agree it does need some serious trimming, but it serves the project and readers by remaining. Schmidt, Michael Q. 03:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (per sources) Delete - I'm not a "Gardnerian Wiccan" or a "Cochranian Wiccan" (or even a "Wiccan" really) but I understand both schools of thought quite well; certainly well enough to confidently dismiss the suggestion that this is an important work that should be considered notable for its impact in its field. I, personally, find it interesting but that isn't the same as something being notable. I perhaps not as convinced as Schmidt by the passing mentions upon release and I'm not seeing the "reviews" that might qualify as significant coverage in reliable sources. Perhaps he could point us in the right direction. Obviously happy to be convinced. St★lwart111 06:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, righto. I'm not convinced the 01FilmPlot one meets WP:RS but some of the others clearly do (like the Dutch one). That's enough for me. Thanks for coming back and providing those. St★lwart111 07:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Can someone take action already? It's been 7 days since I created this deletion discussion page. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 10:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you still think it should be deleted, you might want to address the sources provided. A few people have asserted that this doesn't pass WP:GNG, though Schmidt has neatly rebutted those assertions. Those participants haven't been back to address the new sources provided but you are welcome to do so. Otherwise this will probably be closed as "keep" given GNG-sufficient sources have been provided and nobody has refuted that claim. St★lwart111 11:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepDelete I really want to say keep. I want to help @Cochranefaithful: develop this article further. However, I'm extremely concerned about the amount of original research still remaining in the article. Given Cochranefaithful's stated reasons for the article, I'm not convinced s/he will ever be willing to see the article entierly free of OR. Also, I'm not convinced the references sufficiently establish notability. Most of them seem to be Capsule reviews, which are specifically cited as "coverage insufficient to fully establish notability" in the film notability guidelines. Of the remaining references, two of them are used in the part of the article that is OR to support claims about Cochrane Wicca in general. That leaves one source, Pagan Federation London's review, which rises above the level of a capsule review and includes some substantial criticism of the movie from the point of view of Wiccan practitioners. One source is simply not enough to establish notability for any article. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ONUnicorn, any particular concerns about the Cinemagazine source? Doesn't fit the criteria of a capsule review. St★lwart111 03:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was counting that one as a capsule review. It's about 300 words, gives a brief plot synopsis, and then a criticism of the film as boring and not worth watching. It compares it to Charmed and The Craft, but doesn't go into much depth of criticism or analysis. It does go into more detail and analysis than most of the sources cited in the article, but imo is still a capsule review (although barely - and I can see the argument that it is more, especially when compared to other sources in the article). ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 13:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's a 3rd longer than the criteria provided and the fact that the reviewer thought the film was boring is neither here nor there - something can be notably boring. But I get where you're coming from and I appreciate your explanation. St★lwart111 13:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is additional coverage at another site. Might be seen as a pagan site, but not widely known by Wiccans as far as I am aware. A lengthy review from January. http://hidden-highgate.org/coven-jurys-still/ User: Cochranefaithful — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.255.233.124 (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That was interesting and an enjoyable read. Unfortunately the problem with that site is that it seems to be a personal blog, which isn't considered a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards. See WP:BLOGS.
On the other hand, the more I think about it, the more I think Stalwart111 might be right about the Cinemagazine source, that it's just too long and detailed to be a capsule review. I'm changing my vote to keep. I think this movie just barely meets WP:NOTFILM. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with ONUicorn's point that there is too much original research and that this needs to be removed. The OR relates to the themes section as there is none elsewhere in the article. The original research does not belong in this article and is not necessary for the article to be coherent. The 'Themes' section can therefore been removed and I have taken this action. On the issue of notability I believe that Schmidt and Stalwart have given good arguments and would recommend that the article is kept with the modifications made. CochraneFaithful — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cochranefaithful (talk • contribs) 23:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to relist yet again. As earlier !voters have not returned and their arguments refuted. its time to close as keep. Schmidt, Michael Q. 06:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to Keep: I hadn't thought it necessary to voice a new opinion as my own delete vote had been loudly trounced (and justly so), but just to be clear, agree that sufficient sources have been found to keep the article. Kudos once again to MichaelQSchmidt WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:17, 11 April 2015 (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/The_Coven_(film)&oldid=1138836877"