Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Community film


 * 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 draftify. There's a consensus that the content of the article needs a lot of work to fit the tone, although the notability does not seem much in question.  bibliomaniac 1  5  03:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Community film

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A conversation at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film reinforced my concern that this is more of an academic essay than a notable encyclopedic topic. There are some mentions of the topic, but nothing that establishes its notability      StarM 01:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.       StarM 01:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete since it runs afoul of WP:NOTESSAY in being "primary research on a topic" and not published elsewhere. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 11:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, there appear to be WP:SET results for community filmmaking, which looks like the same topic. However, this article is still problematic in compiling primary sources to advance a topic. In a way, it may have been ahead of its time, but Wikipedia needs articles that summarizes what secondary sources say about a topic. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 11:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful to have editors capable of writing a grammatical sentence! "Wikipedia needs articles that summarize what secondary sources say about a topic."
 * Do not Delete since the article is based on already published primary research, community film festivals, conferences, books, reports, academic papers, stretching back 30+ years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.46.27 (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment IP 77 shared some insight on the Talk page, here, which I'm sharing for convenience. IP, there's no need to criticize others' writing. Typos happen.      StarM 22:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the correction! Now it would be helpful to make a case based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The problem with this article is that it violates WP:NOTESSAY in not actually summarizing secondary sources that talk about the topic directly. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 01:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Close analysis of COMMUNITY FILM reveals:

(1) It is not Primary (original) research; the article is almost entirely based on already published primary research, community film festivals, conferences, books, reports, academic papers, stretching back 30+ years; in support of this point there are 30+ citations. (2) It is not a Personal invention. COMMUNITY FILM does not advance any specific author or his/her interests. (3) It is not a personal essay as it does not reflect personal views of a specific individual. (4) There is no evidence of Advertising, marketing or public relations. (5) evidently community film is notable topic and term as it has been used for 30+ years. (6) It is a current topic, with 6,250 references to it on Google News (7) 1,340 books and articles discuss this topic, according to Google Scholar. (8) There is a strong link with another article: Community Media, an umbrella term for various forms of community exhibition, production, theory etc.

However, COMMUNITY FILM is clearly in need of further revision and development to take account of the most recent scholarship as mentioned on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.46.27 (talk) 07:41, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose deletion: Evidently the page requires some revision but does not fall foul of wiki guidelines TheoryofSexuality (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This editor, before their above comment, last edited four times in October 2017, and before that, October 2013; see contributions here. Hard not to see this as a form of WP:SOCK. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Note IP 77, it would be helpful if you can bullet your posts with * (as I've just done) as it makes reading the page easier.       StarM 18:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm humbled by the insistence or suggestion that this article is an original contribution to research. (If only it were that easy in Academia). Speaking as a researcher, it strikes me that the article is highly derivative, rather like a non-critical literature review of published research. Nonetheless, the summary and paraphrase of various academic works still sounds judicious and neutral.
 * Gosh! Is it really 9 years since this article was first posted? I'd no idea it would cause such a controversy!


 * I concur that the article could (should) be revised; for example, it would be helpful to include more up-to-date references to pop culture, e.g. community film festivals and events. Also, there are several points where the tone sounds rather polemical. I can't recall whether that aspect reflects the source texts accurately.


 * I'm not sure how notability is being defined in this context, however, other than by a computation of academic citations, or Google metrics for News etc. On that score, it appears that the topic has increased in significance in recent years. This development is not surprising, given the rediscovery of community values and the meteoric rise of inexpensive digital media.


 * Sadly, two of the most recent academic books that survey this topic are priced so extortionately that they are beyond the budget of the general reader who perhaps does not have free access to a University Library. Filmpartscom (talk) 18:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * To answer your question about notability, I think the issue is this topic not being specifically termed. For example, DeeDee Halleck is referenced in this article when her book is about community media, and we have numerous books about that. So her quote seems leveraged to build on this actual topic despite lack of a direct connection. As another example, The Video Activist Handbook is referenced to apparently define the term, but the reference does not appear to actually do that. Same with @ Is For Activism: Dissent, Resistance And Rebellion In A Digital Culture not having that term. So when this combines different references that do not actually use the term, it looks like WP:SYNTHesis. I think it's difficult to see the actual scope of this article when "community film" seems like a WP:NEOlogism. If it was a more detailed description of the scope, something like activism in filmmaking, a reader can understand that the article would address the overlap of these two scopes. I don't see a clear definition of the scope as indicated by the sources. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * What's the difference between the TALK page and the PROJECT page? Is all the most pertinent information in the correct place?Filmpartscom (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your various thought-provoking responses


 * Despite having community media in the title, the book by DeeDee Halleck is almost entirely about film in the community.

In response:
 * You guys clearly do a thorough job putting articles through the mill! Who'd have thought there were so many pitfalls and challenges?

I'd be honoured if I'd invented Community film in 2011, but that's not the case.WP:NEOlogism does not apply: several contributors have pointed to the use of community film in connection with annual festivals in Canada since 1990 and the UK (2006-7), whereas various film books record articles on this topic from the 1970s. The article could be improved by referencing these.

WP:SYNTHesis ??? Looks to me more like an attempt to be inclusive with a range of references, rather than relying on a single source, which would surely have been challenged as a weak foundation?

This is a positive suggestion: "If it was a more detailed description of the scope, something like activism in filmmaking, a reader can understand that the article would address the overlap of these two scopes. I don't see a clear definition of the scope as indicated by the sources. " --- someone could work on that? Any any rate the proposed deletion appears to have motivated various people to dig up some useful texts that I was unaware of, and surely they could provide a solid foundation for a much improved article? Filmpartscom (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * just to answer your question about Talk v Project, I think IP77 was having issues posting here, but all should be on this page. Also I just tweaked your "in reponse" so fix the alignment, the content itself is fine      StarM 01:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks: StarM

Earliest notable refs [???] to Community Film, e.g. Beattie, Eleanor. The Handbook of Canadian Film (1977). Second Edition: "Teachers and librarians may find the sections "Using Films" and "Film Publications" and the bibliography most useful. In addition to the category "Film Study," the following new sections have been included in this revised second edition: "Community Film and Video,""Native People and Film,""Political and Third World Films," and "Women in Film." "
 * Unfortunately, I'm not able currently to track down track down refs mentioned on the Talk page as all our libraries are still closed due to the lockdown, and a key book is unavailable online:

It's notable that Halleck refers to community video in the context of community access to TV and the showcasing of community film work, which is a very different angle from practical techniques for community filmmaking (pp. 104-106).

Due to the coronavirus lockdown, I'm not able currently to contribute to any significant new version of this article.Filmpartscom (talk) 07:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Is it notable that the British government (2013) assumed that there was already a legal framework for Community Film, when it proposed to deregulate the sector? See: Community film Exhibition: A Consultation (July 2013)

The legal framework is also evident here: Statutory Instruments (Great Britain), H.M. Stationery Office, 1972 - Delegated legislation - 25 pages

Most of the earliest refs to Community film date from the 1970s: "In the technical areas, Third World Cinema and Clif Frazier's Community Film Workshop Council were training qualified apprentices and had placed a few with local unions to work on New York films. " p.14 (Black Creation, Volumes 2-6, Institute of Afro-American Affairs at N.Y.U., 1971 -). From the same source: "THE BUS IS COMING: Independently produced community film. A black Vietnam vet comes home and finds racial turmoil brewing after the death of his brother at the hands of a racist cop." (p. 56)

And also some references from the 1940s: "Organized cooperation, at the local level, seemed the best way to begin — and the community film council was on its way. Like any genuine grass-roots movement, initial local film council leadership varied widely from community to community ..." (Saturday Review, Volume 32, 1949, United States)

"COMMUNITY FILM NEEDS AND RESOURCES • HOW TO ORGANIZE AND CONDUCT COMMUNITY FILM WORKSHOPS • HOW TO ORGANIZE A FILM FESTIVAL • HOW TO CONDUCT A COMMUNITY FILM FORUM • HOW TO ORGANIZE .." (p. 137) (School and Community, Volumes 35-36, Missouri State Teachers Association., 1949) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmpartscom (talk • contribs) 08:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

In summary, considerable evidence has now been presented for the historical provenance of the page title and for its notability in terms of popular and ongoing academic currency. Narrowing the title to "activist" potentially increases confusion as it exaggerates a political angle; likewise or "filmmaking" delimits the angle of community education/distribution of film which is essential to the term's use. Finally, I'd argue that this article and its title has the same status and legitimacy as the wiki article on Community theatre, and has useful analogues with Community Media etc. It is agreed that further revision would improve the quality of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmpartscom (talk • contribs) 12:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Nominator comment just saying that if this ends up deleted, it should definitely be draftified so the IP, Filmpartscom and others can workshop where the content should live. A couple of possible names seem floated above.      StarM 13:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm not going to say that the topic of community film doesn't belong in Wikipedia, but I don't think this article does a good job of introducing the topic to those who aren't familiar with it. If the article is kept, I think it would benefit from significant reorganization and rewriting. The article needs to give a more detailed explanation of what community film is, such as describing how such films are made and where they are shown, before getting into debates about whether community film has the power to change society. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. The creator of this article has supported it here by citing as referring to a UK proposal to deregulate the "legal framework for Community Film". But that's about removing restrictions on community organizations to show films as long as they do so in compliance with the age restrictions applied by the film censorship board. Local organizations showing commercial films, including Hollywood movies, isn't what this article is supposed to be about. They also cited, which makes reference to "an application for the registration of a foreign film as a Community film" and "in Regulation 15(2) after the words 'British film' there were inserted the words 'or a Community film'". This appears to be a reference to the European Economic Community. In summary, evidence being provided here does not necessarily support the apparent topic that the article is supposed to be about. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.