Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/An Inconsistent Truth

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The Authenticator (talk | contribs) at 19:37, 23 May 2012 (→An Inconsistent Truth). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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. 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 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]

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 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]
  • 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]

  • 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]
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]
  • 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]
    • 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]
  • 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 talkedits 16:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • WorldNetDaily has generally not been considered a reliable source. MastCell Talk 17:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Generally, perhaps, but not universally, and as I said, the individual author seems to have the necessary credentials to pass muster as a WP:RS. —Torchiest talkedits 17:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Those credentials are self-supplied on an unreliable website. As best I can tell, Unruh (the author of the piece) is not notable as a journalist or film critic, and most of his output seems to consist of questioning the validity of Obama's long-form birth certificate and writing articles like "Obama czar's 'homo-genda' proposed for U.S. schools". Call me crazy, but I don't think this is what WP:RS has in mind. MastCell Talk 18:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Here are two articles he authored almost two decades ago when he worked for AP. So he's not lying about his credentials. Does a career as a journalist get negated by becoming a strongly opinionated commentator? Perhaps I'm incorrect in doing so, but it seems to me that there is a difference between saying everything written about an article's subject is 100% correct and saying some of that which is written about an article's subject is opinion, yet still carries enough weight to make it notable. Also, some of the other sources still seem to add up to notability. —Torchiest talkedits 21:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • "Does a career as a journalist get negated by becoming a strongly opinionated commentator?" It should when you reveal yourself as a nutball. David Lawrence had some absolutely kooky views, but his non-kooky work still carried weight. However, the fact that it was Unruh is who wrote something on WND is of no real effect.--Milowent • hasspoken 21:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • "Does a career as a journalist get negated by becoming a strongly opinionated commentator?" Interesting question, which I think turns on editorial oversight. I'd say that his work under the editorial oversight of the Associated Press might be considered a reliable source. His work under the editorial oversight of WorldNetDaily, not so much. MastCell Talk 21:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The film holds numerous positions of repute including having been the top grossing film per screen for 2 weeks running. Even if we were to accept the accusation of "bias" for the sake of argument, why isn't the same accusation applicable to Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth"? This film is an exploration of the "other side" of the argument presented by Al Gore in his movie. In the case of "Inconsistent", there are several testimonies given by experts in climate science, including major contributors to the very report Al Gore cites in his film. If Wikipedia's effort is to remain neutral and balanced, removing this page would be a direct action against that effort. If those who support Al Gore's message are allowed to have their say/representation, disallowing a film that explores the facts and opinions of the other side is anything but neutral and balanced. Wikipedia should also call into question the motive behind those wanting to delete the page. What could call for such desperate attempts to prove that "well technically it doesn't meet such and such a guideline"? I suspect that the effort to delete the page is less about maintaining the "integrity of wikipedia" and more about silencing a vocal opposition on a very divisive issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrsemn4 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC) — Hrsemn4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • "...having been the top grossing film per screen for 2 weeks running."
    • I'm afraid you've fallen for their misleading promotion. It was the top grossing film per screen, because it was only screened at one theater. That's not impressive in the least. The rest of your comment is not helpful perWP:OTHERSTUFF and a failure to assume good faith. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • While having the top per-screen average in the country was an accomplishment for this film, the problem is that it didn't gross much more after that. An Inconsistent Truth remained in release for only 7 weeks, never played more than 3 theaters, and grossed less than $70,000 in its entire run. By contrast, Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth remained in release for 23 weeks, played in 587 theaters, and grossed $24 million for its entire run. The Phil Valentine film just hasn't been paid anywhere near as much attention, whether favorable or unfavorable, as the Al Gore film. I would recommend that the supporters of Inconsistent see if the film can get more attention, maybe even go back into release and play in the rest of the country where it didn't play before, to get it established as notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:31, 23 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/An_Inconsistent_Truth&oldid=494037272"