Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Confrontation at Concordia

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.  Sandstein  18:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confrontation at Concordia

[edit]
Confrontation at Concordia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable film; fails WP:NFILM absent significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. DePRODed with the comment that the Jewish Chronicle review demonstrated notability, but that wouldn't be true (it's still both a NFILM and a GNG fail) even if the Jewish Chronicle had reviewed the film. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:44, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Sufficient coverage cited in the article to meet WP:GNG, although the existing version seems quote-heavy. Perhaps a discussion could be had about whether it would be editorially beneficial to merge the articles about both Confrontation at Concordia and its counterpart, Discordia (film) (an article that currently has almost no sources, although I did find a Variety review and a Toronto Star article about that film) into the existing article 2002 Netanyahu protest at Concordia University, adding more detail about both films. In any case, there's clearly sourced information of value in this article that should not be erased (nor its editing history eliminated), so deletion does not seem to me to be appropriate. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:14, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you explain what in the article you believe to be significant coverage in reliable sources? I see two think tanks (unreliable sources), two primary-source documents (primary sources do not attest notability), a news article about the incident (but not about the film), and a routine-coverage story about a lecture by a professor that included a screening of the film. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:35, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The film deals with a controversial and notable incident at a major Canadian university.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]
So? The incident has its own article. Christmas is notable, but not every heartwarming direct-to-video Christmas film merits an article because of it. Your comment has absolutely no relation to our notability policy or to any other policy. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. easily meets both WP:GNG though numerous articles discussing it and the controversy surrounding it, as well as WP:NFLIM as the winner of a "best documentary" award at a notable film festival. I am in the process of adding more references (which are easily found, BTW, and the nominator does not seem to have made an attempt to do so), as well as a addressing some of the other points raised by Carol Moore (shortening lead, NPOV'ing etc...) 71.204.165.25 (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you tell me what some of these "numerous articles" are? WP:GNG/WP:N/WP:NFILM require (it's not optional) discussion in reliable sources, not partisan organizations like JCPA and CAMERA, and they require (also not optional) significant coverage (ie. not passing mentions like the Inroads article.) The film festival award also seems questionable since they accept submissions based on what people can pay rather than on quality. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some of those articles are a lengthy and detailed review in the Toronto Star, Canada's highest-circulation newspaper, by the TS's media critic, (convenience link used in the article:[1]). There's an equally detailed review in the Hamilton Spectator (unfortunately behind a paywall, but snippet available here:[2]). Even if we had nothing else, these two detailed reviews easily meet WP:GNG, as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". But of course, we have much more than these. We have an extremely detailed, scene-by-scene analysis as part of the CBSC's response to several complaints about the film (which again, even by themselves, are indication of notability), we have shorter references to the film in both Inroads and in Academics against Israel and the Jews (ISBN: 9652180572), in the Jewish Channel and on B'nai Brith's web page, and additional mention which are unfortunately dead links at this point, such as this one "Global TV under fire: Concordia conflict documentary heavily biased, students argue", Elise Hugus, June 10, 2003 http://thelink.concordia.ca/news/03/06/10/027212.shtml. 71.204.165.25 (talk) 03:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Hamilton Spectator piece is an op-ed by Aaron Mate, who appears in the film, and The Jewish Channel broadcast the film and obviously has an interest in promoting it. Coverage must be reliable, significant, and independent in order to attest notability (the "reliable" requirement also rules out student newspapers, like the Hugus piece - The Link isn't even the main campus paper - and B'nai Brith press releases - and of course the idea that we would even consider admitting JCPA's "Academics against Israel and the Jews" is laughable). The CBSC responses aren't good because they're primary sources, but if you can find a few secondary sources on the controversy (like for Jenin, Jenin), that could be enough. The Toronto Star piece (which I initially mistook for a publication of the site where it's hosted) is admissible, but it isn't enough alone. I also don't think that two sources would demonstrate encyclopedic notability. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • You are sadly confused about the difference between "reliable" and "partisan". There's nothing to preclude the latter from also being the former. You also don't seem to understand the meaning of "independent" in the context of establishing notability, for it is clear that both Mate and the JC, are independent of the film's director and producer. That you think it is "laughable" to include a book just because its publisher has a political agenda reinforces my initial suspicion that this is a bad-faith, politically motivated nomination. This suspicion is of course supported by the fact you did not similarly nominate for deletion the Discordia article, about a similar documentary about this same event, which has ZERO references in its article, (an "article" which is all of 42 words long, comprising two sentences), has not won any award, but takes a position more sympathetic to the violent rioters than this movie does. 71.204.165.25 (talk) 04:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's nice that you have infinite amounts of time on your hands to go about checking whether or not Wikipedia articles are about notable subjects, but I have not. As I've stated multiple times here and elsewhere, I have the article on "Discordia" open in my browser right now so that hopefully in the next week or so I will have time to look for references. What a silly, childish comment. As for your contention that being unwilling to admit sources with no reputation for fact-checking or editorial oversight is evidence of bad faith, it's lovely that you have your own personal opinions, but WP:RS and WP:V disagree with you. I'm also not sure how you could possibly interpret "independent" (WP:IS) in such a way that it excludes the cast of the film and entities who gain financially from the film. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per above. SarahStierch (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • See my response to the above. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response A similar documentary Discordia has its own Wikipedia page. Do you plan to remove this one too? Also, anti-Israel documentaries, such Jenin, Jenin, have their own Wikipedia pages.
      • BTW, your comments that "not every heartwarming direct-to-video Christmas film merits an article" is both irrelevant and a rather condecending. As for my comment that this film is notable, I was expressing my own opinion (shocking as it may be). (Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]
        • You argued that the film was notable because it was about a notable thing. That's not how our notability policy works. Notability is based on significant coverage in reliable sources, not personal feelings. As for the other films - I'll have to look for sources and see if they seem to be notable. I already had Discordia open in my browser because it was linked from this page, but hadn't had time to sift through the bad results yet to see if there was anything good; I'll check out Jenin, Jenin too. Not that that has anything to do with whether this film is notable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Wikipedia:Notability (films): "The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking". Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 15:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I've pointed out, the film festival where this film won has actually been criticized for accepting submissions based on who can pay the exorbitant entry fee rather than on the quality of the film. It's described as a festival for bottom-feeders who can't get their films screened anywhere else, and apparently there are on average two films to every category so winning isn't any kind of achievement. This is not "major." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - was aired multiple times on Global TV, Canada's second national network, has a long review in Toronto Star, and a number of shorter mentions as above. --GRuban (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, one review and "shorter mentions" don't satisfy WP:NFILM, nor does being aired on TV. Please try to read notability guidelines instead of making them up. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please don't get upset, my stating the article should be kept isn't meant as a personal attack on you. Honest. For what it's worth, I have read notability guidelines quite a few times in my years here. And, if fact, that is exactly how they're made, people make them up, usually in deletion discussions, in fact; if enough people do so, consistently enough, other people write them down. They're not handed down on stone tablets from Mount Ararat. If you want the chapter and verse for the existing guideline, though, then I believe one indepth review and multiple shorter mentions do satisfy the Wikipedia:General notability guideline, which you probably know WP:NFILM explicitly defers to. Multiple long reviews would, of course, be nice, but the fact that it was aired multiple times on a national television network makes the difference for me; after all, the point of notability is notice, which that does provide. Again, though, none of this is a personal impugnation. So I'd appreciate the same favor.--GRuban (talk) 19:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Don't worry, I didn't take it as a personal attack! :) GNG specifies significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, so I don't know why you're citing it in support of the claim that significant coverage in one source is sufficient. Nor does any guideline talk about airing as an indication of notability. An airing of the program would be a primary source, and we need secondary sources that discuss the subject, as GNG clearly states. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Gruban. WP should strife to inform people on issues and notability is not affected by the by the documentary being pro or anti-israeli/palestinian or its (lack of) quality. In fact WP can and should inform on the controvery and the issues/problems of the documentary.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge with 2002 Netanyahu protest at Concordia University. Despite what some comments suggest, this is not a clear case. I don't think that the sources establish the film as independently notable. If I made a film about 9/11 or the Kennedy Assassination, I couldn't claim that all the coverage of the event made my film notable. On the other hand there is usable content here that I wouldn't want to lose hence my suggestion that this could be part of the article on the protests. I would also be uncomfortable if this article was deleted while Discordia (film) remains- it would look like double standards. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 10:13, 25 January 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/Confrontation_at_Concordia&oldid=1137730668"