Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annie's Coming Out


 * 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. SNOW Keep that the film itself is notable, and that FRINGE either doesn't apply, or the reviews would satisfy the requirements if so (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 12:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Annie's Coming Out

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This movie is about a user of the pseudoscientific technique of facilitated communication, but gives no hint that the subject's communication is not legitimate. WP:NFRINGE specifies that notability of fringe subjects must be established with sources skeptical of the fringe view. WP:NFRINGE is not satisfied. See Articles for deletion/Amy Sequenzia (2nd nomination) for a similar example. The movie is non-fiction. Wikiman2718 (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have posted a notification of this discussion to Fringe theories/Noticeboard. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 16:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have posted a notification of this discussion to facilitated communication. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 16:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep as no valid reason for deletion given; we don't run "the events in this work of fiction didn't actually happen" disclaimers on every article about a fictional piece, and even if we have such a policy that would be a reason to add an explanation to the article, not to delete it. Do you want to go AfD Star Trek next on the grounds that the existence of Klingons hasn't been proven? &#8209; Iridescent 15:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The work is non-fiction. Therefor it is subject to fringe guidelines. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 15:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you see the link to Drama (film and television) in the first sentence? At no point is it claimed that this is a work of non-fiction. &#8209; Iridescent 16:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Its claim is that it is supposedly based on a true story. That does not mean that the movie is presenting itself as "non-fiction".  Balto (film) is "based on a true story".  The Amityville Horror (1979 film) is "based on a true story".  And neither of those, I don't think, are going to be argued that they are meant to be "non-fiction" movies.  And the same thing applies here.  This film is very clearly being presented as a fictional version of a supposed true story, not a documentary, and trying to claim that its presenting itself as "non-fiction" in order to state that it falls afoul of WP:FRINGE strikes me as being very disingenuous.Rorshacma (talk) 16:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Assume good faith. 2) This source states that "The film told the true story of a girl, whose bright intelligence was masked by the severity of cerebral palsy which deprived her of speech and control of her body." It is clearly being presented as non-fiction. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * the film battle of the bulge is based on a true story, its still fiction.Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This source also calls the film non-fiction. And if someone made a "based off a true story" film about history, and the main point of that film was to push a revisionist version of history, the film would fall under fringe guidelines. Ghost stories entertain. Pseudoscience is fringe pushing. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 16:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Try the great escape, there were not yanks there, or U-571.Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That is a minor detail, not the main point of the film. This film's entire plot revolves around pushing pseudoscience as real. Reviewers of the film make it clear that they can't tell the difference. The book that it is based off of is also non-fiction. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 17:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ever seen close encounters of the third kind?Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I haven't. But 1) That movie is clearly labeled as fiction. 2) Any sources that viewed it as a true story in the sense that aliens are real could not be used to establish notability. Such coverage would not be considered "serious and reliable" per WP:NFRINGE. If all sources mistook the fringe for fact, I would nominate the article for deletion. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 18:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't think the nominator has a clear understanding of films which purport to depict historical events. This film is not a documentary. The people in it were played by actors. I find some editors' determination to delete everything that has anything to do with facilitated communication, whether or not it is notable, beyond belief. Is Wikipedia an encyclopaedia, or is it not? RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - As stated, the nomination does not give a valid argument for deletion. This is a fictionalized version of a supposed true story, and thus does not fall under the guidelines set under WP:FRINGE.  In addition, the argument that the article "gives no hint that the subject's communication is not legitimate" is not a valid argument for deletion, as that, if it is a problem, could be very easily solved via normal editing.  Regardless, searching brings up plenty of sources discussing the film, so it is clearly notable.  Rorshacma (talk) 16:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability means it has been noted, that that it is true. Any issues over fringe should be addressed by rewriting.Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Award-winning film, notability is supported by sources. Schazjmd   (talk)  16:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per WP:SK, no valid deletion rationale has been given, and no one other than the nominator has recommended deletion. NFRINGE does not say that notability of fringe subjects must be established with sources skeptical of the fringe view. It merely says that fringe subjects are held to the same notability standard as everything else: they must be referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers. It does say that references that debunk or disparage the fringe view can be adequate, but in no way does it say that they are the only sources that count. Therefore as long as the movie has received sufficient coverage (of any kind) in reliable sources, which the nominator does not argue against, the article should be kept. The sources currently in the article perhaps aren't the greatest, but those plus TV Guide, NY Times, LA Times plus many others are more than sufficient.  C Thomas3   (talk) 17:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * From WP:NFRINGE: "A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers." Unskeptical sources are not "serious and reliable" and the sourcing here is not "extensive". --Wikiman2718 (talk) 17:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , you and I quoted the exact same passage but evidently read it two very different ways. I agreed that the sources actually present in the article weren't exactly stellar, but I listed three additional sources that significantly cover the topic and that are generally considered highly reliable by the community. Please see WP:NEXIST. Further, NFRINGE makes no statement of any kind that "unskeptical sources are not serious and reliable." in fact, it states practically the opposite: "references that debunk or disparage the fringe view can be adequate" (emphasis mine). This most clearly implies that non-disparaging sources can also be adequate, thus fulfilling the extensive, serious, and reliable coverage requirement.I appreciate your passion in ridding Wikipedia in all things fringe theory, but this is a movie, created for entertainment purposes. That is how each of the sources I listed reviewed it. They did not critique the fringe theory because they did not consider it a serious attempt at promulgating it.  C Thomas3   (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Good points, but again I have to disagree. From WP:FRINGE: "References that debunk or disparage the fringe view can be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents." This seems to indicate that a fringe topic has to achieve notability primarily through skeptical sources. The next sentence reads: "References that are employed because of the notability of a related subject – such as the creator of a theory – should be given far less weight when deciding on notability." So unskeptical sources can contribute, but should be given less weight. Here we have no skeptical sources, which I think is too few. Furthermore, my reading of the sources led me to believe that they did not critique the fringe theory because they believed in it. I think the reviews would have looked very different had the truth come out. Not that it matters much, though. It looks like I'm going to lose this one. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 19:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , I know we're getting down in the weeds here and I apologize for that. My reading of as they establish the notability of the theory outside its group of adherents is merely the reasoning as to why debunking/disparaging sources are acceptable, not some kind of statement that only these sources can be used. It's saying that disparaging sources are acceptable because they are independent of the group of adherents. But it doesn't exclude all other independent sources just because they aren't disparaging. I agree with the next sentence that "references that are employed because of the notability of a related subject – such as the creator of a theory – should be given far less weight when deciding on notability." But that says nothing of independent (i.e., specifically not related) reliable sources (like the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and TV Guide) that don't actively criticize the subject. Now if you were able to show that these were favorable reviews written by someone with a tie to the theory, then you'd have something. But as long as they are independent of the subject and published in a peer-reviewed publication with a strong reputation for fact-checking, they are good to go even by NFRINGE.  C Thomas3   (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * : It seems that reasonable people can interpret this guideline in different or even opposite ways. That means the guideline is ambiguous. After this AFD is closed I intend to start a discussion about how to revise the guideline to remove ambiguity. I'll ping you if you're interested. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 19:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , I would appreciate the ping. Thank you.  C Thomas3   (talk) 19:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:NFRINGE is about the notability of fringe theories and not necessarily about the notability of media that advances a fringe theory. This film does appear to meet WP:NMOVIE. Simonm223 (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep, the alleged authorship of this film is absolutely WP:FRINGE, and the views it advocates are too, but that doesn't kill the notability of the film itself, it just means that we have to be careful describing it. ApLundell (talk) 19:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Article is about the movie, not about a false allegation of FC Ylevental (talk) 22:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep That the article as is promotes FC uncritically might very well be a violation of FRINGE and NPOV, but such concerns have no bearing on the film's notability. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I am becoming concerned about a pattern of deletion of articles based on a premise that publishers are not conducting due diligence and that we as Wikipedia editors know better. This is starting to present a narrow view of specific topics and essentially erasing a number of advocates.Random Acts of Language (talk) 10:28, 7 August 2019 (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.