Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/An Inconsistent Truth

Add links
Source: 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. Numerically speaking and overall, though after contributors began citing sources the discussion has clearly trended towards keep.  Sandstein  04:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An Inconsistent Truth

An Inconsistent Truth (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)
Non-notable film, fails
WP:MOVIE), and has not been selected for preservation or taught in accredited film programs. MastCell Talk 17:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

*Delete Sorry, I missed this entirely. I saw the coverage and assumed it met notability requirements. Upon further inspection, there is some coverage, but I not much. If someone wants to look for some additional citations, it may be enough to warrant a keep. I'll keep track of the page in the meantime to see if any improvements are made.JoelWhy (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Doesn't meet
    talk) 18:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Orlady (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For the guy who couldn't find any Google hits on the movie he wasn't looking very hard. Check out the following links:
And, by the way, the trailer has over 32,000 views as of this writing. Pretty significant and relevant if you ask me. --The Authenticator (talk) 22:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC) — The Authenticator (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
We're not looking for Google hits - we're looking for independent, reliable sources. MastCell Talk 23:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean by that, MastCell. Is that the criteria any of you panning this article used to include the movie
Thankskilling with no track record of success or any evidence of being notable yet kills this movie then the motivation is obviously political. Is that what you really want to degenerate into? So you don't buy the position this movie is taking. I get that. But you're judgement on whether a film should be included is obviously being clouded by your political views. I would ask you not to go there. --The Authenticator (talk) 00:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Or it could be that the other film is not notable either but no one has though to bring that to AFD yet. In other words it may be possible that both article should be deleted. In short, The fact that Thankskilling had not been through AFD yet is irrelevant and this article needs to stand on its own.--174.93.169.157 (talk) 01:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are dozens of films less notable than this one that are included. This Is Not a Film is just one example. It played one theater (An Inconsistent Truth played at 4 theaters in 3 cities) and less box office gross. The fact that these films are included and this one is being considered for deletion is completely relevant. It is THE point. Ask yourself why this one is drawing so much attention. I think that fact that it is drawing all this fire makes it relevant and notable in and of itself. The last thing Wikipedia should want to be is inconsistent and discriminatory. --The Authenticator (talk) 01:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please see
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
It's drawing attention because another editor happened to come across it and found someone pushing a POV using the movie as a vehicle (see initial removed edits). Without question, there are hundreds, more likely thousands, of articles that should be deleted from WP, and one at a time, when they happen to be in front of the right person at the right time, they will no doubt get deleted as well. Feel free to open an AfD and nominate any that you find that don't meet the criteria as put forth in
WP:MOVIE, just like this one. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 02:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
  • This movie satisfies ALL of the
    WP:GNG. It is sourced by many legitimate sources: The Daily Caller, The Tennessean, The Commercial Appeal, The Nashville Scene, Fandango.com, BoxOfficeMojo.com, IndieWire.com, WesternJournalism.com, Boston.com and many more. It's listed on IMDb.com. It's rated by the MPAA (PG, by the way). There are hundreds of independent films that are never rated. That's a major point as far as legitimacy. It goes far beyond satisfying the guidelines. --The Authenticator (talk) 02:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep: Earth to !voters... Earth to !voters... Come in... Come in... I know saying anything untoward about the Patron Saint of "Global Warming"----I mean "climate change"---is a crime worthy of a topic ban, but this film is notable:
  1. [2]
    Commercial Appeal
    is RS
  2. [3] KPCC is RS and its blog passes WP:NEWSBLOG
  3. [4] newsblaze.com is RS
  • Multiple sources checkY
  • Substantial coverage checkY
Winner winner chicken dinner! Closing admin please take into account most of the "Delete" votes were cast before I found multiple RS which establish notability. – Lionel (talk) 08:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether it's a punditry site or not is irrelevant. All we care about is editorial oversight. Newsblaze.com is cited extensively on Wikipedia. In fact 359 times. No issues raised at WP:RSN. The author, Prarie Miller, is an award-winning film critic, journalist and poetess. Sits on the governing boards of
    Broadcast Film Critics Association. It goes without saying her credentials are impeccable [5]. Newsblaze is solid. – Lionel (talk) 11:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
No, editorial oversight doesn't give a website an automatic pass. That said, the authors credentials do appear legit, so I'll withdraw that complaint. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not especially impressed with the quality of these sources, Commercial Appeal aside, and I continue to feel that this topic doesn't have the requisite non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable sources. My !vote above stands, and I'm unimpressed by the partisan rhetoric in this particular !vote. MastCell Talk 17:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But...but..."numerous positions of repute"...non-News, -Books, and -Scholar Google hits...being panned by a critic whose "credentials are impeccable"...you're not being fair and balanced... Anarchangel (talk) 09:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)—has made, you know, a few edits outside this topic, but rarely in a satirical tone[reply]
  • Comment This AFD has now been canvassed, not surprisingly, on Valentine's twitter and website.
    talk 01:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Good catch, after reading both the twitter post and the website post, I have to wonder if that's the same kind of "journalism" that went into his movie, if so it would certainly clear up any questions I had concerning why it didn't last long. I particularly enjoyed the part where Valentine's website compared everyone here who votes to Delete to Holocaust Deniers, and those who reject the moon landings as real. Do I even need to type out my opinion on that? -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 15:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well where are they??? Phil has 2500 twitter followers! It's been over a day. I have my patented, copyrighted and trademarked welcome tamplate all ready to go: {{RightWelcome}}. Has Wikipedia become that irrelevant that we can't even pique the interest of 2500 right wingers? – Lionel (talk) 04:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Solid Keep – the topic has received significant coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. As such, the topic fully passes Wikipedia's
    General notability guideline
    :
There's also this article which is comprised of significant coverage; the source's reliability may be unclear:
Here's another short article:
—Northamerica1000(talk) 15:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unfamiliar with the "Western Center for Journalism", but a) its review is a brief capsule which doesn't address notability requirements, and b) any review which pronounces: "Al Gore and his one-world allies are beginning to lose the battle to destroy industrialized civilization" is unlikely to be useful as a
reliable source for a serious encyclopedic article. I get that we're trying to dig up any and all sources to stave off deletion, but we are really scraping the bottom of the barrel with some of these. MastCell Talk 15:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Just a note that Western Center for Journalism is clearly a right-wing organization (you don't need to read past the headline to make that conclusion.) Nashville Scene appears to just be a blog. As you point out, Newsblaze is another right-wing cite. I did change my vote to weak keep, but let's not pretend this is some clearly noteworthy film. It may pass have enough to make it through the door, but not by much.JoelWhy (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Moved the source in my !vote above for The Western Center for Journalism under revised heading "Here's another short article:". It appears that the synopsis in the article is quoted from the film's creators. The Nashville Scene source qualifies as a
newsblog that is published by SouthComm Inc., which also publishes The Nashville Post and several other publications. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep in mind that Bearian is a member of the Sierra Club. That's why he elevated his heading to an emotional "Laughable" rather than an objective "Delete" or "Keep." This is the kind of bias I've been warning about. Metropolitan is exactly right. There are tons of movies on Wiki that did far less box office business and tons more that went straight to DVD never having been shown in theaters. Bottom line: We have here a certainly notable personality (Valentine-#42 on Talkers Magazine's list of top talk show hosts) who did a movie that, so far, has done respectable box office, if not admirable for a self-funded independent. I think it's a no-brainer that this is a keeper. --The Authenticator (talk) 10:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh there is clearly bias both ways, take off your own tinfoil hat and you'll see it. But the strength of the arguments is the key.--Milowent • hasspoken 12:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Authenticator, you really need to familiarize yourself with Wiki guidelines before attempting to argue for inclusion. In just your latest post alone, you've ignored
WP:NOTINHERITED. These rules aren't intended to stymie debate, they are intended to exclude irrelevant arguments. You may wish to start by reviewing this page.JoelWhy (talk) 12:44, 25 May 2012 (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/An_Inconsistent_Truth&oldid=1143384902"