Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Blind Perspective


 * 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   delete. There does not appear to be significant coverage beyond a regional, student award which does not, in itself, convey notability. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   02:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

A Blind Perspective

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I can't find sufficient indicia of notability on gnews or gbooks for this film. Epeefleche (talk) 04:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. This doesn't seem to pass WP:MOVIE. It's sole distinguishing feature is that it won a student award with six other films, which doesn't appear to be a notable enough award to show notability. I can't find any reliable sources that show that the film has been discussed anywhere or been reviewed by notable critics.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Delete I am also unable to find any independent sources that provide decent coverage of the film, such as a review. I agree the student award does not constitute a "major award" per WP:MOVIE. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 06:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 09:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. To politely disagree with the respected nominator, an award from the notable Royal Television Society, the oldest such in the world, honoring student achievement is a quite decent assertion of notability. It does not matter that other films may have received awards, as we consider the award itself and what IT means: being recognized by a notable institution for one's creative efforts. That's noteworthy.  This is not the winning some trivial prize in a minor contest, but verifiable national recognition by a notable organization, thus allowing the film to be worthy of note, even in the lack of significant coverage. For a 3-minute animated short, this is quite the coup. Unless the assertion is that recognition by the Royal Television Society is somehow not major nor notable, this passes WP:NF#3.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly open to a discussion on this point, and when I have time will explore it myself. My focus, admittedly, as mentioned at the outset was as to the lack of coverage in RSs.  All disagreement, and especially polite disagreement, is of course welcome.  I would also be interested in the view of MQS as to whether the director here is notable -- his article is at AFD as well.  See Articles for deletion/Matthew Marsh (director)--Epeefleche (talk) 04:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment MQS---I was looking more closely at the Royal Television Society awards, and it seems as through the film has actually won a regional award, not a national award. The undergraduate entries that regionally win are then selected further for "National Judging," however, A Blind Perspective did not win this national judging, nor was it in the running for nomination at the "National Judging" level.  I don't deny that it has an award from a notability television organization, but I'm wary of placing a lot of weight on this regional award given that the film did not appear to survive the next "round" of nominations. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 04:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. A single regional student award is insufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My thought is through consideration of just WHO it is that chose to recognize the filmmaker's achievement, and not toward the age of the filmmaker nor that he was a student when being so recognized, and the fact that we do have precedent where younger artists can be found notable through recognition of their achievements.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And if there were more material supporting notability, then I would be swayed to opine a "keep", but with this single award, no. -- Whpq (talk) 02:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Gone to weak above. I do not expect wide comentary and review for a 3-minute animated film, and have only been able to verify that one award.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't had time to look at this more closely, but will say that I do respect MQS's views, and laud him for modifying (somewhat) his !vote based on the discussion. Too many of our colleagues dig in their heels, and fail to take an honest second look, once they have established a position.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The easy road would have been to do a complete 180, and I do agree that in-depth commentary and review of this 3-minute film would be great to have, but per the applicable SNG a film receiving a notable award by a notable organization is worth considering for inclusion, no matter its coverage or lack, as long as we have verifiability of the material in the article.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll match you. I'll change my !vote to Weak Nomination.  Given the award.  I hadn't looked at it from that angle, at the time of nomination.  And frankly -- but if the regional awards were only regional awards, and there were not a national round (which it did not win), I might well have viewed even the regional award as sufficient.  Kudos to Jethro as well, for his good work.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering the auspicious nature of the body making the award, I feel it may be perhaps more notable then we might consider a Regional Emmy, and then I keep in mind that not all winners of the regionals go on to win the nationals, but can be notable none-the-less.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 10:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.