Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Secret of Oz

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. J04n(talk page) 23:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Secret of Oz[edit]

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

Lack of notability. All coverage to be found is from fringe, biased sources, not reliable secondary sources as required by WP:GNG. No widespread, significant coverage by legitimate media. See the deletion arguments for the director's other film, The Money Masters. It was deleted for similar reasons. Ducknish (talk) 21:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The documentary won an award at a reputable film festival (or at least one with a Wikipedia entry). Enos733 (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But that's just about it in terms of accolades, and I'm not sure how much weight that particular festival imparts, because it doesn't seem to be one of the most important film festivals (I could be wrong). And even then, if reliable sources don't exist... Ducknish (talk) 23:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. I looked at this article for deletion as well, and verified that it won an award at a legitimate film festival. It doesn't have the same problems that The Money Masters had in terms of the film not being notable, it's currently a viable stub. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to delete due to the strength of the arguments below the relisting. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for this in Google News, I keep coming across posts in the comment sections mentioning it everywhere, and places just announcing it was on their television station. Highbeam shows only one result, but it something about a 3D effect with glass, nothing to do with this documentary. If the Beloit, Wisconsin film festival was notable, wouldn't someone write an article about the winner of the best documentary award? Dream Focus 10:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete article. Merge what is sourcable and then Redirect title to it filmmaker Bill Still. Simple point here being that as a film, it fails applicable notability criteria. This free-to-watch-online, for-sale-at-Amazon documentary film by Bill Still exists, but has not received the requisite commentary or analysis in independent reliable sources. While it may have won an award at a notable film festival, that award did not result in coverage. It's existence is verifiable. Its notability is not. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The Bill Still article is almost certainly going to be deleted at this point. Meanwhile, winning a noteworthy film award does confer notability in this case. This is a very different case from Still's other film, and Still himself. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note: With the elimination of the Bill Still article, my suggestion above of a merge is now struck. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per rationale of Thargor Orlando. A viable stub, notable by virtue of having won a prominent award from a notable film festival.-- Dwc89 (talk) 18:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that Thargor Orlando has changed his argument to delete. Mkdw ^talk 00:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: for Dwc89 and Thargor Orlando: I am a staunch defender of improvable articles, and have a long history of improving and saving articles facing deletion. But we need to be realistic. The first thing WP:NFF tells us that meeting WP:GNG could be sufficient for a film article. However and sadly, lacking any sort if coverage in independent reliable sources this film topic fails the GNG. And yes, while its section on "other evidence of notability" instructs that when internet coverage is not always possible, winning an major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking IS a indicator that when supported with reliable sources, required sources are likely to exist. That's what we need. Reliable sources speaking about the film. Simple. Had I been able to find any though my various searches, I would be trying to improve the article myself. The best I have found is BSNews: "The Secret of Oz won best documentary of 2010 at the Beloit International Film Festival. It won the Silver Sierra Award for Excellence in Filmmaking at the Yosemite Film Festival. It won the Award of Merit at The Accolade Competition in La Jolla, California. It won the Silver Screen Award at the Nevada Film Festival. It’s received an excellent review on Nathan’s Economic Edge, one of the world’s top economics blogs." If BSNews can be considered reliable, and if Nathan's Economic Edge id determined suitable, then we have a meeting of WP:GNG and thus WP:NF.... but only IF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And looking at it, BSNews (the BS standing for bullshit) does not appear to be a reliable source. It seems to be precisely the kind of fringe media that does not prove notability for something like this. Ducknish (talk) 20:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Delete I'm leaning towards delete at this point. Bill Still was deleted via XFD, but User:Dwc89 has made it a redirect. I have nominated it for A10 since the outcome was delete, not redirect, and DWC89 can take it to WP:DRV. That said, despite winning its award, all the sources are primary on the article, and if no reliable sources have paid attention to the film winning the award, it's likely not a very prestigious award. Notability is not inherent. A notable film festival does not mean that its award is notable. Mkdw^talk 00:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You make a good point here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my position to delete. Unless we can find sources that directly show the award is notable and/or prestigious, then we should not assume the award is notable because the festival is notable, and subsequently, winning the award makes the film notable. For me, it appears notability is three times removed from the source. Mkdw ^talk 01:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Though the Bill Still article is now deleted, I would think specially in considering how many reliable sources speak toward and quote Mr. Still, and per WP:CREATIVE#1, a NEUTRAL and encyclopedic article on the man is possible. IF such a new article is created, his film can be mentioned therein. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the consensus in the deletion discussion of his article was that, POV aside, he's still non-notable. Ducknish (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)r[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.