Talk:Our London Lives

Removed sources
I ended up removing or re-writing quite a lot of the article. As stated earlier, the article reads like a personal interpretation of the film, which doesn't fit in with Wikipedia's WP:NPOV guidelines. Of particular note is that you must be neutral and brief when discussing elements of the film. Unless something is explicitly stated in the film or in a reliable source, we have to be matter of fact with things. Most of the issues with tone tended to center around the fact that the article was written to be a little promotional, like it was written by a fan or a representative for Atherton. Be very, very careful with this as being promotional can cause a lot of problems with an article and even lead to it getting deleted or razed if it goes live.

The sources were also largely problematic. I removed some of the sourcing and left some, but here's a rundown of the sources. Ultimately only a very, very few sources can really establish notability.


 * 1) London Live should be usable since it's a television program on Channel 4 and as such, should be seen as a reliable source. Usable.
 * 2) The List can be used as a reliable source, however this is just a routine notification of an event. There are other sources that establish the same information (that it was shown, the amount of footage, etc) that are more in-depth, so there's no actual need to include this in the article. Including it could be seen as WP:CITEOVERKILL.
 * 3) The Museum of London would be considered reliable and showing here would be a sign of notability. However what this doesn't establish is that it became part of their permanent exhibit. The link gives off the impression that this exhibition is like typical exhibitions at an art museum in that it's going to be temporary. What you would need to establish that it's there permanently would be a listing specifically for the film footage. For example, something like this establishes that the painting in the record is "in store", which likely means that it's in storage, which would in turn mean that it's part of their permanent collection. A news article could establish the same thing, but it would have to be in a reliable source.
 * 4) Action for ME. This source is a bit problematic. It's not really a reliable source per se, since we can't entirely guarantee the amount of editorial oversight that goes into their posts. It's also somewhat of a routine notification that the film will be on display, so many could see it as WP:TRIVIAL. There's also concerns about how secondary it would really be, since Atherton suffers from ME and as such, it's within their best interests to write about him. All in all, this is something we could potentially use to back up some basic information, but it's not something that could or should really be used to establish notability.
 * 5) IMDb. At one point you listed IMDb, however this cannot be used to establish notability on Wikipedia since anyone can really edit and add information to IMDb. It looks like you were using it to back up basic information, however I have to state that it's best to not rely on IMDb as a source. It also looks like you were relying on show time information, which really wouldn't be usable as a source at all. There's also the issue that the source link actually went to the MoL site.
 * 6) The Stage. This is a review of a performance that the two attended. It's really not necessary to include a link to the review in this way since no one is really doubting that the performance happened or that they attended. I note that on my user page you commented that you were afraid that the average reader wouldn't be able to understand things from another country, however I don't think that there will be a huge issue around this, as there are links to the theater house and the Jemima Puddle-Duck book, which they can click to if they need further explanation.
 * 7) Telegraph. This has the same issues. While a reader might not be immediately aware of the play in question, it's not always necessary to state the actual play or where it was performed. Sometimes giving a brief overview of things is better - saying that they attended performances rather than list them out and so on. Like above, I don't think that the average English language reader will have that much trouble establishing that the father and son attended performances, so adding a source for this is really unnecessary. While we don't want to overestimate the readers, we really don't want to underestimate them either.
 * 8) Guardian. This is for a restaurant, but the same issues here apply. I don't think that it's really necessary to list every place they visited and link to a review of the place. Again, things need to be an overview of the film. Going into a lot of detail could be seen as largely unnecessary for the purposes of an encyclopedia article.
 * 9) Guardian. Same issues here.
 * 10) Time Out. Same issues here, but with an installation.
 * 11) Research Space. Same issues, also unnecessary.
 * 12) YouTube. This is a WP:PRIMARY source since it was posted by Atherton. While you're using it to back up basic details, it's not entirely necessary to use it in this manner. It's better to summarize things rather than to name drop various locations.
 * 13) Atherton's blog. Now this I removed for a specific reason. It's a primary, self-published source, so that means that it's more fallible than other sources. What makes that so important is that you used it to back up the statement that Atherton is currently estranged from his son. This is a huge, HUGE issue since it can easily run afoul of WP:BLP. While no, this isn't a biography page, it does concern a fairly sensitive subject between a father and his son. Including that the two are estranged could lead to the son complaining that the page was written to shame him into talking to his father. I know that this was not your intent, but you have to be extremely careful about things of this nature because it's so easy for people to complain and for Wikipedia to get in trouble. If you can show that this was mentioned in a news article and/or that it was placed as a final word in the film itself, then it could maybe be included. However barring that, it shouldn't be in the article at all. Out of everything I removed from the article, this is the one thing that I really must ask that you not re-add.
 * 14) YouTube. There are some mild concerns with copyright in this, as this is a copy of the performance uploaded to Atherton's YouTube page. Colourful Radio looks like it could probably be seen as a reliable source, though. You can get around this somewhat as long as you list the dates of the piece, which are in the YouTube video.
 * 15) BFBS Radio. This didn't mention Atherton at all and you'd need to link to the specific piece to really be able to use it to back up the claims of Atherton's homelessness. Now the source is produced by the BFBS, which is good, but we'd really need to be able to look at the source to really establish if it could be used to assert notability.

Now the issue here is that we have a lot of sources that only establish basic details and cannot establish notability. While you can use sources to back up basic information and not be intended to be used to establish notability, this should only be done sparingly because doing this can lead to original research, which shouldn't be in an article. The only times you should really use a source in this manner is when you're asserting something that could be seen as controversial, which isn't really the case here. I don't think that anyone will really question that the Athertons went to various venues to eat, view performances, and art, and I don't really think that linking to reviews is really necessary in order to make things clearer for the reader, as the average person will already have an idea of what a restaurant would be like. I can see it to a mild extent with the art installations, but even then it's not entirely necessary if you just give a brief overview of the film.

When it comes to notability, I'm not entirely sure that this really needs an article outside of Atherton's main article at this point in time. Much of the sourcing just states that the film exists and can be seen. If we had some film reviews then that would be different since a review is one of the easiest ways to establish notability. However the problem still remains that this is an autobiographical documentary and as such, most of the material would be things that would already be in Atherton's article (or should be, at least). We've had cases on here where a person's autobiography book or film really didn't expand much on the main article and as such, the article for the film/book was brought up for deletion and the decision was made to just merge and redirect the title to the main article. I'm concerned that this would largely be the same here.

Also, I have to again ask if you are related to Atherton in any way. You stated on my talk page that you'd been watching him for a while, but your writing does occasionally veer off into WP:PUFFERY on occasion. You also tend to only edit on Atherton related materials. If you were asked to write this material and/or if you are a personal friend or acquaintance of his, you must disclose this. If you're not, then you need to be very, very careful about tone and sourcing, because right now it looks like you do have a conflict of interest. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  07:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Response
Again, thank you so much for taking so much time with this.

The key issue as I see it, is the film being taken into the Museum of London collection. As the Gallery "Show Space"'s only purpose is to put on display items that have been recently acquired by the Museum for it's collection, I'm struggling a little to understand why this isn't evidence of its inclusion? However, I take your point about the collections reference so seeing if I can find the individual film listed somewhere, as it would come under http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/collections-research/about-collections/life-stories-oral-history/ and I've yet to find an individual entry for any of these.

As previously stated in my contributions, I was in contact with Atherton during Ballet of Change i 2007 but have had no contact with him since. He is a subject of interest to me and hence I add to information when I feel it worthy. However I acknowledge that my style of writing is more inclined to be conversational than encyclopaedic and is something I'm doing my best to address (the nature of the plot proved problematic for me, as this film is only really comparable to the likes of Senna (film), Amy (2015 film) & Listen to me marlon but obviously without a cinema release it is unlikely to garner the reviews of something that has.

(Amanda Paul (talk) 09:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC))
 * That's kind of the rub for a lot of exhibitions. Exhibitions are almost always temporary pieces that tend to travel from museum to museum, so it's possible for something to exhibit at a museum but not be part of their permanent collections. However at the same time, this is usually a way that many museums do acquire pieces, as they will see something that they like and think is of value. I wonder if we can get an e-mail from the Museum of London to establish that the piece is part of their permanent collections? I'll ask at WP:RS/N about this. If we could get the museum to file a ticket through the WP:OTRS system verifying that it's permanent, that e-mail could potentially be used as a source. While a museum isn't an archive per se, I'd argue that the Museum of London could easily be seen as an equivalent. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Further Response
This isn't that kind of exhibition though TokyoGirl. This space known as Show Space is only for items either recently accepted into the Museum's collection or already contained there. The entire text reads as follows:

"Show Space

We regularly add objects to our collection and make discoveries about the things we already have.

Here we present some of our recent arrivals and tell the new stories we have uncovered. We make connections with what is happening in London right now, and mark anniversaries that are reflected in the objects we hold.

"#ShowSpace"

@MuseumofLondon"

I took a photograph of the sign yesterday

And here is the tweet from Museum of London confirming that's where it's displayed https://twitter.com/MuseumofLondon/status/695257396134989824?lang=en

What do you think?

(Amanda Paul (talk) 13:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC))
 * It's kind of a tricky thing, trying to establish notability for films. What we really need here is some sort of tweet or missive from them that officially states that this specific film is part of their permanent collection, so that if someone questions things then we have something definitive to point to. I know that this sounds like needless red tape, but people have become that pedantic on here. The easiest thing to do might be to ask the MoL to post a tweet that specifically states that the film is part of their permanent archives. I'll send them a message, but it would be a good idea for as many of us to ask as possible. That way they can see that it's a necessary thing to post. I don't even mind if you explicitly state that it's for establishing notability on Wikipedia, since that might help give the request a little more oomph.
 * In any case, the standards are NFILM are pretty frustrating since they are geared more towards mainstream fare, which makes it far more difficult for indie works, art films, short films, and genre pieces (horror, fantasy, etc) to gain acceptance. As someone who edits a lot of film articles, I can understand your frustration. It's just that we need to be able to have something really concrete to point to if people start questioning its notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  06:30, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I've emailed the head of collections at the Museum of London and am awaiting a response. I suspect this to take weeks/months rather than days.  Will this article hold in suspension until then, or is it better to incorporate into Paul Atherton in the intervening time? Amanda Paul (talk) 12:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)