Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/An Inconsistent Truth

Add links
From 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

[edit]
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 [http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/an-inconsistent-truth-exposes-gores-agenda/ World Net Daily] piece is a full length article specifically about the movie, written by [http://www.wnd.com/author/runruh/ 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 [http://www.wnd.com/2010/02/124704/ "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]
  • 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]
  • Comment The Nashville Scene is not a blog. It's a weekly newspaper in Nashville. The following is a link to Climate Change Dispatch which IS a partisan site BUT it reprints a piece by Anne Paine from The Tennessean that also ran in the Detroit Free Press. Most of the Tennessean content is not found on the Internet because you have to pay for it. Here's the link: http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/9868-al-gore-is-villain-in-an-inconsistent-truth --The Authenticator (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Enough sources have been shown above, in particular by Northamerica1000, to meet the general notability guideline. The case for keeping this hasn't been helped by the battleground mentality, invalid arguments and junk sources shown above by some of the defenders of this article. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was not canvassed to be here, but found this on the delsort. While the article needs work, and should not rely on questionable sources, we do have enough offered above to show the film as meeting the requisites of WP:Notability (film). I note that a few of the above delete votes appear to have been based upon sources contained in the article at the time of their votes and not upon what is findable through searches. That's not how we determine a topic's notability. I have not seen the film and have no opinion one way or the other on its subject matter... but we do not sit in judgement over the truth or not of a topic. We instead determine through policy and guideline if it has, even in ignoring questionable sources, received enough coverage in enough reliable sources to be determinable as notable. This one has. And with respects to the nominator, those "attributes" you shared, are not requirements of WP:MOVIE, but are criteria that if present encourage more diligent searches for sources. As sources already exist, we need not even consider whether or not we need consider them. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be clear: as best I can tell, the currently available reliable sources include a short piece in the Commercial Appeal [6], a couple of paragraphs in a Nashville-based newsblog [7], and a longer piece in a public-radio newsblog [8]? MastCell Talk 23:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • We have enough to expect more. And, as was clarified further above, while a blog without editorial oversite is usualy far from being reliable, those edited and mainatined by reliable sources usually are. Added to Commercial Appeal, we have Nashville Scene and KPCC which are reliable enough for our purposes as being the offical news blogs (not personal blogs) of reliable sources. We naturally do not use the reader's comment responses to the news blog. I was more concerned with the WP:OENs being offered as if they were mandates. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Certainly not the most notable documentary ever made, but the three sources discussed by MQS and MastCell just above, plus perhaps the Prarie Miller review, are enough to get over the notability hump. I'd add that the further development of this article may be subject to the concerns and guidelines set forth at WP:FRINGE. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This film grossed under $70K and only showed on two or three screens, and seems to fail most of the criteria at WP:MOVIE, but it could just need more time to determine whether it is historically notable, seeing as it was released this year. Perhaps wait a year and try to recreate. Being listed in IMdB and receiving 2nd place (out of 4) at the Appalachian Film Festival doesn't establish notability. The sources used here that are reliable do not represent significant coverage of the subject, mostly being short write ups from Tennessee outlets, so this does not pass WP:GNG. Gobōnobo + c 01:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it has a cool poster with a dollar sign over a couple of smokestacks uploaded by yours truly. File:An Inconsistent Truth poster.jpg Don't you think that's worth at least a "Weak keep"? – Lionel (talk) 04:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Last I looked, we do not look to IMDB for reliability or notabilty... do we? We also do not use a film's budget as a measuring tape. Nor do we imply that minor awards at minor festivals mean it must somehow be non-notable. We also do not use meeting some of WP:NF's guidelines while missing on its others as a reason to delete. For a film that has screened and is still scrreening, we can determine it, even if just barelly, notable enough to wait for even more as it continues to screen. And while WorldNetDaily is conservative, they do have editorial oversight.[http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/an-inconsistent-truth-exposes-gores-agenda/] The Western Journalism Center may be conservative and promote investigative reporting, but does their being conservative mean they do not exercise editorial oversight? [9] Last I heard per WP:NPOV, we try to represent fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. If the sources being used were of a Liberal-bent, would we still be having this discussion? We accept ALL reliable sources whether they are conservative OR liberal in order to maintain balance. Seems that if a film article is felt unbalanced, it simply requires attention... not deletion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Laughable. How could anyone with a straight face claim that a movie that grossed $20,000, in its best week, is notable? Will every short film played at the Cannes Film Festival get their own articles as well? Will a moron in a hurry mistake this for Al Gore's Oscar-winning film? Bearian (talk) 18:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability depends on coverage in reliable sources, not gross takings or laughableness. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think we can rule out the possibility that a film that grossed $20,000 in its best weekend is notable. It isn't guaranteed to be notable, but Wikipedia does have some articles about films that never grossed $20,000 in a weekend and had total grosses lower than that of An Inconsistent Truth (total gross: $69,394). Looking only at 2011 and 2012 releases that have completed their theatrical runs, we have articles about The Giant Mechanical Man (total gross: $7,396), Orgasm Inc. (total gross: $49,001), Margaret (2011 film) (total gross: $46,495), The Myth of the American Sleepover (total gross: $41,045), Louder Than a Bomb (film) (total gross: $40,362), The Son of No One (total gross: $30,680), Sarah Palin: You Betcha! (total gross: $10,935), and Janie Jones (film) (total gross: $6,840). None of these films ever grossed $20,000 in a weekend, and some didn't gross that much in their entire North American run. And they might all be notable -- I'm not calling for them to be deleted. But anyone who says that An Inconsistent Truth grossed so little that it couldn't possibly be notable would have to say that those other films must also be non-notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:15, 25 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:OSE, WP:AFG, and 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]
  • Keep Per MQS.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - like the nomination to delete the Phil Valentine article I believe this nomination is purely driven by a disdain for the beliefs espoused in the film. There are many topics I don't agree with, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. Deleting this article would be censorship of a controversial topic and that is a path we should avoid at all costs. Gerry D (talk) 00:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please assume good faith. I want to echo what JoelWhy said above about assuming good faith. I've !voted "keep" here but I have no difficulty understanding why good faith editors of long standing and experience might see it otherwise: when you come down to it, it seems that the film was screened in Nashville for a few weeks, and basically nowhere else, and some editors just feel that's not enough. In light of the multiple reliable sources that have covered the film, I see it otherwise, but the case is close, and I don't see any need to assume that the delete !votes here are driven by political philosophy, as opposed to the usual good faith disagreements about where to draw the line on notability. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is difficult to assume good faith when the guy slates his comment "Laughable." That's all I'm saying. If we want to calm the criticism of the Wiki editors let's act like grown-ups and rationally analyze whether or not an article should be included. I certainly understand those who question the reach of this film. That's a legitimate point. However, taken in its totality the film appears to pass all tests.--The Authenticator (talk) 12:49, 26 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=1253202314"