Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Oath (2005 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 merge to Nathan Collett. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Oath (2005 film)[edit]

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

Appears to fail the WP:Notability (films) guidance. Apart from one reference to a show, I find no references in Google News. Fæ (talk) 10:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge/Redirect to director Nathan Collett. While this film does not have readily available sources (and I am willing to be convinced otherwise if they are brought forward), it seems that the director himself does have coverage,[1] and his article can be improved and better sourced. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested to article on film maker. Really no information in this article beyond a description of the film, because no secondary sources. Not saying it's not a good or important film. Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm trying to find useful links, but its hits in Google are buried because of the new (2010) film of the same name. Nonetheless, verifiability can be found in IMDb and Amazon. I realize this is not compelling evidence of notability, but I feel that as the only film treatment of the Mau Mau to be made in Kenya by Kenyans, it is notable on its own merit. As a foreign film short from 5 years ago, it will be challenging to find weighty sources online, but I will keep trying. Please don't flame me for my vote! I saw the film myself upon its release, and I know there was considerable notice taken of it at the time (indeed, it plainly launched the career of Nathan Collett). I just would like to see the article tagged for expansion rather than deleted. SteveStrummer (talk) 19:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Re:Frame program website, part of the Tribeca Film Institute, has a page about "The Oath" which lists awards from "French Cultural Center, Nairobi, Kenya; National Museums of Kenya; Humanist Hall, Oakland, California; Pan African Film Festival, Los Angeles, California USA; FESPACO, Burkina Faso; Zanzibar Film Festival; the World Social Forum, Caracas, Venezuela." Is TFI's word good enough for this, or should they all be individually sourced? SteveStrummer (talk) 05:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Reframe site is problematic as single source for information. Its stated goal is "The goal of Reframe is to help individual filmmakers, distributors, archives, libraries and other media owners to digitize and sell their work using the internet, and to become a one-stop location for anyone seeking these films." which in essence makes it an on-line shop and in fact runs as an Amazon partner site.

Putting aside the commercial issue, the page about the film itself does list these awards but includes no information about where this data was taken from. It is clear that the site takes user submissions as well as reviews written by readers. Consequently information on the site is unreliable and Reframe makes no statement with regard to the extent of editorial control. As the list of awards may have been written by an amateur or a publicity agent, there is no guarantee that the awards are notable or were actually nominations rather than awards won. There is no information about the year of the award, which would seem a key fact for inclusion in this article.

Putting this all together, I would say that third party sources are needed to support any information this site provides. Fæ (talk) 07:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I respect these comments but I feel it should be pointed out that Reframe, as part of TFI, is a 501©(3) nonprofit organization: its connection to Amazon is purely a distribution partnerrship and Reframe earns no profits on the sale of films. As for editorial control, it is clearly not a public forum, as Reframe itself delineates contributions that may be accepted from users: "We have invited noted directors, professors, critics, film societies and experts in the field to contribute to blogs and make curatorial recommendations. Users are encouraged to build profiles, create and share their own lists of favorite films, review available films and comment on blog posts." I have become a member just now and can verify that users may only add content in these 4 ways: they cannot add or edit movie pages. It seems to me that the objective information on the site should be taken with the same level of authority conferred upon TFI. (I should also make clear that I am not affiliated in any way whatsoever with Reframe, TFI, the film, or its makers.) SteveStrummer (talk) 07:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may be more useful to raise it as a potential source on WP:RSN as this will gather more opinions that are possible in an AfD discussion. It will be more creditable on the notice board if you can point out an editorial policy that the site applies. It could claim to be either a primary or tertiary source but, as the site fails to cite sources for data, it will remain of debatable quality.

I note that Tribeca Film Festival exists but not Tribeca Film Institute, it may be a good candidate for a new article. Fæ (talk) 09:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Nathan Collett. Coverage about the film is scant. There are some brief mentions like this, and this, but no substantial coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 15:34, 8 July 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.