Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Delicate Balance – The Truth


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

A Delicate Balance – The Truth

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

tagged for 2 years as reading like an advertisement (see also talk page), no reliable sources. --Wineisred (talk) 10:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Regards,  KC Velaga   ✉  09:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Here's a rundown of the sources, some of which I had to run via the Wayback Machine:


 * The Lifescape source is unusable. It only confirms that the film exists and a look at the content shows that it was lifted directly from the Wikipedia page, which means that there was likely no actual checking of the content.
 * IMDb is not a RS on Wikipedia.
 * Vegetarian Guides is an e-commerce site, so it shouldn't be on the page at all, let alone be used to back up claims of positive reviews. Places trying to sell you something are far less likely to show the negative reviews for a work and are more likely to say nice things about the product, assuming that they write anything about the product at all. Most e-commerce sites just use the marketing materials provided by the company that created the product.
 * Official website. This is a dead link, but it's also kind of a moot point since an official website is not usable as a RS to back up claims of reviews. The reason for this is that it's quite common for websites to feature promotional blurbs from various people. These blurbs might seem like they're excerpts from a longer piece but in actuality just be a promotional 1-3 sentence blurb solicited by the publisher for the product (in this case a film). In other cases the blurb might be from a longer review, but the publisher cherrypicked the one positive sentence from the article. And then, of course, there's the possibility that despite being highlighted that the blurb is from a review or article that isn't considered to be a RS on Wikipedia.
 * Meatout looks to be a primary source, since its content seems to be PR material geared at directing people to the film's website and sign up to host screenings. A truly independent source wouldn't be pushing for that, at least not to that degree.
 * Abolitionist. I couldn't get the Wayback Machine to bring up anything and the link itself is dead. I'm not sure that Abolitionist Online would be considered a RS on Wikipedia, especially as there's not much out there and the website seems to be dead offhand.
 * Evolving Wellness. This one is debatable as to whether or not it's usable. It's a review written by the site's founder, however I also note that she "only" holds Bachelor's degrees in the given fields her site covers and there's little here about editorial oversight. I have to assume that this would likely be seen as a SPS. However even if this is a RS, this is the only usable source thus far and not enough to keep the article.


 * So far there's little to nothing to establish notability on the page per the review above, but I'll see what I can find. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  02:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. A search brought up nothing better than what was already on the article and nothing to show that any of the blurbs in the article are anything other than a short promotional blurb sought out by the filmmakers to promote the documentary. There's no mention of it in anything that Wikipedia would considered to be an independent, notability giving RS and even the trivial, primary, or SPS are kind of few and far between. It looks like this exists, but there's not much more beyond that. The best I could find was this mention in a list of documentary films, but then I'm not sure that the publisher would be considered a RS on here even if the mention was in-depth. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pyre advertising. Should have been removed as G11.  DGG ( talk ) 16:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per TokyoGirl's analysis of sources. Most likely doesn't meet GNG. There are some mentions of this film in books, but it's trivial.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:57, 26 August 2016 (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.