Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Are All Men Pedophiles? (3rd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus. Obviously there is no consensus to delete. Page was relisted 7 days ago, with no discussion since. While I could've closed as keep just going by a simple head count, only one of the keep arguments is a straightforward keep that actually makes any attempt to address the nominator's concerns, while the second and third seem to share the nominator's concerns on sourcing. All three keep arguments also raised concerns on one particular source (FilmThreat) and there is substantial debate even among those !voting keep as to which sources are sufficient.

Based on the actual substance of the arguments presented, that's why I'm closing this as no consensus and not keep.— Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 19:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Are All Men Pedophiles?
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Other than the Jezebel and Buzzfeed articles, which interestingly enough are extremely and reasonably critical of the documentary, there isn't much else to establish notability. The rest of the sources (and even the additional sources I can find) are just listings of "x played at y festival", with those festivals largely being non-notable. Wrt the award by NVVS - it doesn't appear to be a notable award, so it also doesn't contribute to notability and the jurors/judges that awarded it don't appear to be notable names or known in their respective scientific/medical communities.

I've done a fair amount of digging and despite the two articles I mentioned above, there doesn't seem to be sufficient coverage to support this article and certainly not to the extent that it's currently written.

I'd also point out that if there were more coverage, I wouldn't be afding this but the problem I have is that while the Buzzfeed coverage is fairly decent and the critique from Jezebel is as well, Jezebel is largely based on Breure's Buzzfeed interview so in my opinion, neither of this are significant enough to meet WP:NFILM as basically being one single major review. So on it's own, these two just simply don't establish notability and that's ignoring the fact that CUPIDICAE💕  18:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Netherlands.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I found additional coverage of the film here and here. Cullen328 (talk) 20:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I had checked those myself but the Vancouver one is a staff blog, so while still more reliable than if it weren't staff, isn't endorsed by their editorial board and is a single sentence, not a review of the film but the filmthreat is of dubious notability and reliability (as I have opined in the past) because it doesn't identify who is writing reviews and is largely rehashed bits of other reviews. CUPIDICAE💕  20:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The Vancouver Sun source devotes three sentences to this film, not one sentence. Staff blogs by professional journalists are acceptable as sources. Accuracy matters. Looking more closely, I understand your concerns about FilmThreat which seems to have a "pay to play" business model but I see no indication that the reviewer did not actually watch the film. Cullen328 (talk) 04:16, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Keep This article has gone through three nominations for deletion. It appears to have some okay sourcing and, while I wouldn't necessarily oppose it going away, I also think that this fight has happened before and the focus should be on improvement rather than deletion. PickleG13 (talk) 00:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   06:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment One hit in GBooks talking about the film, it's a snippet view from where I am so I can't see how acceptable it is. Oaktree b (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The notability here is pretty razor thin. I added a book mention where the film is given about two paragraphs worth of discussion. The other sourcing is pretty thin, but just enough to establish notability. With FilmThreat, the site is generally considered to be reliable, but I hadn't noticed how obvious their pay to play service had become. This needs more evaluation at RS/N to determine which posts and reviews from them should be considered reliable. Anything that was paid to have reviewed shouldn't be considered reliable, obviously. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  11:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.