Talk:San Antonio Independent Christian Film Festival

Unbalanced referencing
The majority of the article is sourced to a single press release, and 5 citations are used for a short paragraph (4 of them for a single sentence). This is blatant WP:GAMING. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I am proposing that The Widow's Might be merged here, per WP:MERGE HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * #2 Overlap: the material on this film is virtually the only sourced material in this article.
 * #3 Text: there's been very little written about this film, and what there is is largely duplicative.
 * #4 Context: it appears that this film has only been written about in context of this festival, so it makes sense for Wikipedia to discuss it in this context.


 * Oppose. #3 and #4 are false, per the sources in The Widow's Might, and #2 is simply a reason to expand this article on the other films and other material (User:Hrafn suggests at Talk:The Widow's Might that this festival has an ideological bias: this should be documented if true). -- 202.124.74.81 (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ROFLMAO! The Widow's Might is only four sentences long, and two of those sentences are about the festival (the other two being the introductory sentence and the plot summary) -- blatant overlap, text and context. Another ludicrous, unsubstantiated argument by assertion by Two-two. "ideological bias ... ideological bias ... ideological bias ... ideological bias ... ideological bias ... ideological bias ... ideological bias ... ideological bias ... " -- saying ten times doesn't make it any less WP:Complete bollocks than saying it once. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The only reason The Widow's Might is so short is because you cut it quite substantially; I see the film and the festival as quite distinct topics (the plot of a film has no relation to the festival at which the film wins an award, for example); and I thought you said the SAICFF had an ideological bias of some kind -- was that just a joke? -- 202.124.72.238 (talk) 00:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you might like to add the material in this journal article to the article. -- 202.124.73.6 (talk) 03:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It was 'cut substantially' because it was "substantially" sourced to a fracking unreliable fracking non-independent fracking Press Release. I.e. the article was "substantially" a regurgitation of publicity blurb. I.e. WP:ADVERTISING.
 * When reliable sources ONLY discuss the film in the context of the festival it is outright delusional to state "I see the film and the festival as quite distinct topics". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The reliable sources do not only discuss the film in the context of the festival; they just mention the prize when talking about the film. Conversely, the festival is associated with multiple films. And I again invite you to add the material in this journal article to the article. -- 202.124.75.42 (talk) 13:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I did a Google News search of coverage of this film -- and they most certainly do  not  only discuss the film in the context of the festival
 * "Buy This Article $30.00 / £20.00   Rent This Article Now for 24 hours    $5.99 /£3.99 /€4.49 " -- so no, I won't be buying it -- particularly given I only have your word that it is relevant.
 * What is this now? Two-two assertions 5 : Reality 0? I've lost count. 16:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Pity. I'm sure you'd enjoy the process of adding something to a Wikipedia article, instead of just heaping personal abuse on editors. -- 202.124.72.170 (talk) 02:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Recent improvements to The Widow's Might make this an extremely poor idea. -- 202.124.74.18 (talk) 10:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Closing this as there appears to be no support for a merge. -- 202.124.75.5 (talk) 03:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)