Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/An Inconsistent Truth

An Inconsistent Truth

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

Non-notable film, fails WP:MOVIE. Promoted with the ludicrous claim that it was the #1 box-office performer "per screen" (it played on exactly one screen, which speaks to notability).

Specifically, per WP:MOVIE: this film has not been widely distributed; has not been the subject of at least 2 full-length reviews by nationally known critics; shows no evidence of historical notability; has received no major awards (2nd place at the Appalachian Film Festival doesn't meet that bar in 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 - even after repairing what I could, I don't find much reason to keep this article. Very difficult to find info on this movie, even its own website says "Now Playing! Nashville's Regal Hollywood 27", that's Phil Valentine's hometown, and I can't find it playing anywhere else. Checking the listing of that theatre, it's not listed. So even the movie's own website is wrong, it's not playing anywhere, nor is there any indication that there will be a DVD release. Not notable. -- Despayre ^{tête-à-tête} 17:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with storm and fire: Only ONE Google News hit, on a Nashville-based blog. [1]. No evidence of notability, no reliable sources cited. Fails WP:MOVIE going away. The article's creator is a SPA whose Wikipedia activity centers around this article and the Phil Valentine article, to which he's added a great deal of unsourced and trivial content. Ravenswing 18:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- On that topic: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil Valentine. MastCell ^Talk 18:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tennessee Tax Revolt. --Orlady (talk) 18:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for the heads up. I'll get right over there and make sure they aren't deleted.– Lionel ^(talk) 09:38, 22 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 WP:MOVIE and any of the notability guidelines at WP:GNG. Wildthing61476 (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]

Delete as non-notable. If it becomes notable for any reason, then it should be restored without issue. Collect (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:MOVIE outright. I think there's going to be a puddle on the ground regarding this one. - Pmedema (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:MOVIE is surprisingly strict. a13ean (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MOVIE, sorry. No way this will be kept, I'm afraid. JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Phil Valentine#Film & Television (if Phil Valentine survives its current AfD). The claim that this film was the #1 box office performer "per screen" in its opening weekend is true, albeit much less impressive than the film's supporters might have us believe. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:49, 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 on Wikipedia? A $3,000 budget and never saw the inside of a movie theater yet there it is on Wikipedia. I have listed 6 independent, reliable sources above. They include The Tennessean newspaper, IndieWires (the premiere independent movie website), The Commercial Appeal newspaper from Memphis, WorldNetDaily.com. I can list many more but what's the purpose. If Wiki is listing a movie like 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]

Delete per MastCell. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MOVIE, no evidence WP:GNG is satisfied. Johnuniq (talk) 02:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But you're not addressing the issue of this one. We have a legitimate film here. One that played in several theaters across the country. One that was the top-grossing film per screen in the country for two weeks. One that's one of the 50 top-grossing independent movies of 2012. It has won awards. It is written, produced and hosted by a nationally syndicated talk radio host listed by Talkers Magazine as one of the most important talk show hosts of all time. It addresses one of the most contentious issues of our time. It has garnered national attention from major news sources. How could anyone say this movie is not notable enough to be included on WP? --The Authenticator (talk) 02:23, 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]

Well, okay, The Authenticator has thrown up some sources. We should at least examine them.
1) Under no circumstances does a 75-word blog entry satisfy the GNG’s requirement that the source discuss the subject in “significant detail,” even were we to believe the blogger to be a reliable source.
2) This entry spends two sentences discussing the subject. Massive GNG fail.
3, 6) Not a reliable source as per WP:IRS.
4) Are you kidding us? Seriously? Why not see if Weekly World News has a bit on it?
5) Err ... where is the content in this link? Are you suggesting that a video clip constitutes a reliable source certifying the notability of a subject? Ravenswing 02:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't consider #6 a reliable source? The Commercial Appeal is the main newspaper in Memphis. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:06, 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:

[2] Commercial Appeal is RS
[3] KPCC is RS and its blog passes WP:NEWSBLOG
[4] newsblaze.com is RS

Multiple sources Y
Substantial coverage Y

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]

Newsblade is not an RS, it's a punditry site. Can't speak to the rest until I get home later. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:11, 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 Women Film Critics Circle and New York Film Critics Online and is a member 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]

Keep: I guess my !vote bucks consensus already, but there is an argument for borderline notability under WP:GNG for this pathetic movie, based on the sources cited above.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, first noting that most of the deletes above were added before a few editors found independent reliable sources providing significant coverage. Particularly, the World Net Daily piece is a full length article specifically about the movie, written by an author who has written for multiple newspapers and the Associated Press. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although I can appreciate the support for keeping this article from Milowent I have to point out that calling this a "pathetic movie" is exactly what damages the credibility of contributors and editors. I have to ask Milowent, have you actually seen the movie? I rather doubt it. The accusation from many, specifically about this topic, is that people are allowing their emotions to color their editorial judgement. We need to try to eliminate any perception that entries are being deleted based on politics. --The Authenticator (talk) 17:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]