Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/An Inconvenient Truth...Or Convenient Fiction?

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 keep. The expansion/sourcing has greatly reduced the potency of the early "Deletes".  —SMALLJIM  22:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An Inconvenient Truth...Or Convenient Fiction?

[edit]
An Inconvenient Truth...Or Convenient Fiction? (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)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: utterly non-notable; failed to attract any media attention.  --Lambiam 00:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Before his stating "failed to attract any media attention", did User:Lambiam look? I did... and I found Weekly Standard,[1] Times-News,[2] The Telegraph,[3] Grist,[4] Accuracy in Media,[5] The New York Times,[6] and others.[7][8] speaking about this film... some in great detail... some less so. In addressing the nom's arguments for deletion, we do not expect coverage in perpetuity, we do not judge a topic non-notable simple because an article might be short, we do not a judge film's notability by its length, we do not judge a film notability by its production company, nor do we offer non-rs links to a film in thinking perhaps that by viewing it others will decide it wrong and so vote delete. That is not how we determine notability for a short length independent film. What we do use for judgements is thorough consideration of its coverage, no matter the topic or its truth or lack. Even if the article's been sitting unimproved for a while, the topic appears to be covered in multiple reliable sources which discuss the film and offer commentary and analysis. That would seem to meet the requisite for inclusion. Even if no one expand this topic immediately, that is no policy requiring they do so, and an outright deletion of an improvable topic does not serve our readers. Heck... even a reasonable redirect to Steven F. Hayward#Career where this is already mentioned and sourced is better than deletion. But again, the article is improvable, and we do use AFD to set a clock ticking. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um... can I ask you to look again at those sources? the New York Times piece is already in the article. The Times-News piece is an abridged reprint of the New York Times piece. The Accuracy in Media piece is a reprint of the Times article, with a few sentences of partisan commentary attached. The Grist piece contains no useful encyclopedic information that I can discern. Let's be clear - at least three of the links you cited are actually to one source - the New York Times article. MastCell Talk 06:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course I looked before I formulated by recommendation. Apart from the observation that this film is a "point-by-PowerPoint rebuttal" of An Inconvenient Truth, the NYT article (of which the others are mostly derivatives) is not really about the film, but rather a somewhat tongue-in-cheek sketch of a subculture of global-warming skeptics.  --Lambiam 10:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah,... one that offers in-depth commentary and analysis within its "tongue-in-cheek". That's just fine. Authored coverage in reliable sources, does not need to be soley about the film, and even with some poking fun at the film, meet WP:SIGCOV as being more-than-trivial in nature. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and suggest nom review WP:BEFORE. More than enough sources to establish notability. Article needs to be improved with the numerous sources found by Schmidt, not deleted. Recommend nominator withdraw nomination as a gesture of good faith and spare the community 7 days in AFD-land. – Lionel (talk) 04:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no reason to withdraw the nomination at this time. Further, I don't see how that would be construed as a gesture of good faith, it should be construed as me changing my mind, I haven't, and finally, I strongly believe that even if I did withdraw it, someone else would immediately nominate it, thus drawing this process out even longer. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 06:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:MOVIE. A handful of brief newspaper articles do not make notability for a film that was never given a theatrical release. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 06:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many films can be found notable without a wide theatrical release. A theatrical release helps, yes, but is NOT a mandate. You might re-read WP:GNG, as coverage of ANY topic is one of the major means by which we determine notability... specially for a film that was not a theatrical blockbuster created by Dreamworks, Disney or Sony. Among others available, a lengthy (not "brief") write-up with commentary and analysis in The New York Times [9] is quite convincing of how W:SIGCOV is met. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With significant articles in major newspaper (NY Times, London Telegraph), coverage in the Weekly Standard, and several other briefer refs, e.g. [10][11][12], which prove continuing influence and importance even if they don't provide much encyclopedic information, it seems quite notable. Failing that, merge to An Inconvenient Truth as providing counter-argument. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't know about it being so much a counter argument as, per sources, Steven F. Hayward agrees with much of what the Gore film shares. His issue is that he feels the Gore film tends to exagerate the issue of global warning and that it omits certain information that would lead viewers to see that while there IS a problem, the results are not quite as catastophic as An Inconvenient Truth would have us believe. Not being a scientist nor having access to the research, I can only go by the sources report. However, in my having just viewed the (yes, boring) film, essentially what his films shares, and what is supported by sources, is that Hayward says "I Agree with Gore, but it's not quite as bad as Gore would have us think". Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets notability per media coverage - and the NYT is pretty good as an RS. Also Fenver Post mentions it, etc. Covered in books [13], [14], quite sufficient to establish notability AFAICT. Not just a "handful of newspaper articles." Collect (talk) 06:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin: article is completely different from the version that was nominated due to a recent fully sourced massive expansion by Schmidt.– Lionel (talk) 06:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - AfD is the best platform of article rescue. Huge changes made to the article since this nomination have made this article notable and worthy of being kept on this encyclopedia. And for the record: I firmly believe that climate change is a real thing, but other people are entitled to their own opinions and if they are expressed in a notable way then the person with a differing opinion on this subject is as entitled to an article as the person who's ideology on this subject I support who has also expressed their opinion in a notable way. Things that may happen are not facts until they actually happen. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 07:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Full articles about the subject in The Weekly Standard, New York Times, and Daily Telegraph satisfies WP:GNG. —Torchiest talkedits 13:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Torchiest that major newspapers and magazines have given full articles to this film. WP:GNG states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." An Inconvenient Truth...Or Convenient Fiction? meets that standard. NJ Wine (talk) 04:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources given (including Weekly Standard, NYT, Daily Telegraph) evidence notabilitiy per WP:NFILMS. ThemFromSpace 21:53, 30 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_Inconvenient_Truth...Or_Convenient_Fiction%3F&oldid=1086055868"