Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Con Games (movie)


 * 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. This article is right on the borderline of our notability guidelines, and there are plausible arguments for keep and for delete. The GNG suggests that a topic has “significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject”. The article has mentions in “reliable sources that are independent of the subject”, though the question of “significant coverage” needs further examination. Though the film might meet the GNG’s definition of “significant coverage” through a directory listing or capsule review, because it is a film, and even the most non-notable film can have a listing or capsule review in reliable sources, the film notability guideline was written to specify that listings or capsule reviews in even reliable sources do not mean much. The weight of the film’s notability rests on Phil Hall’s write ups in Film Threat. Film Threat is clearly a reliable source for our purposes, and it is clear that Phil Hall, who is a notable film critic, feels the film is notable. However, both GNG and WP:NF make clear that more than one film critic writing in depth on the film is needed to meet our notability requirements. The dependence of notability based on the current sources in the article comes down to Buzz McClain’s review for Rovi. Depending entirely on GNG, this review might be seen as enough, though WP:NF explicitly guides against using such capsule reviews as evidence of notability. There has been some discussion in the AfD about which guideline is considered primary – though the intention of the guidelines is not to contradict, but to complement, and expand in detail for some areas. The WP:NF expands upon the “significant coverage” because of the peculiar nature of the film industry in which many non-notable films get a listing or capsule review that could be seen as “significant”, but is in the everyday course of matters, simply a trivial listing. However, when we get to the point where we are having to debate closely the wording of the guidelines, and the article in question has had very significant coverage by a noted critic in a noted publication, then it is better to err on the side of keep rather than delete. An appropriate close in this case is no consensus, defaulting to keep.  SilkTork  *Tea time 17:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Con Games (movie)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Does not satisfy WP:NF; notable only in its lack of notability.  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 20:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I made a fairly extensive search for sources using the search links above, and I didn't find a single mention from a reliable source. I think the fact that the entry at Rotten Tomatoes contains no reviews is instructive here.  — Mr. Stradivarius  ♫ 21:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have seen the update of the article, and I commend MichaelQSchmidt on his efforts. However, I just can't bring myself to say that this film passes the notability guidelines yet. Let's have a look at the sources: the BFI and the New York Times are just directory listings with short plot summaries. Not enough to prove notability. The phrase "Con Games" only appears once in the book Independent Film Distribution, and passing mentions aren't enough to establish notability. The actual topic of discussion in this book is how to get a film produced, not Con Games itself. The Rovi review is actual critical commentary about the film, but as TransporterMan notes it is very short and definitely falls under "capsule review" - not enough as per WP:NF. Which leaves us with Film Threat. I have investigated maybe a dozen of the diffs/links provided on this page, and editors seem to be evenly split as to whether they consider it reliable or not. While it was a notable print magazine, and seems to have a large online readership, they invite anyone to contribute and writers are unpaid volunteers. Phil Hall does appear to be a respected writer in the field, but it looks like he tossed this review off in a spare moment with little editorial oversight. I say this because of the general quality of the writing: the paragraph formatting is strange, and he uses such phrases as "I recently found it by accident in a cheapie eBay auction", along with some generally unpolished prose. It reads more like a blog entry than a respected film magazine. To me, it sounds like Hall found the film, liked the star, and decided to use his website and book to promote him. All in all, I think Film Threat could just about contribute to a notability claim, but it is not enough by itself. In the absence of other sources, I still opt for deletion.  — Mr. Stradivarius  ♫ 13:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad you did read the articles and thank you for the commendation. The improvements might go faster if others help rather than sit back and make such someone else's problem. And too, it must be remembered per guideline, that if an authored plot summary includes critical commentary, such as did the one from reliable source Rovi, then it might be considered.  The section of guideline that would discount such specifically refers to unauthored summaries that do not include critical commentary.  And, as Film Threat offers two seperate articles from several months apart that deal with the film or filmmaker, it just nudges this one over the edge. But you need not agree. Thank you for commenting.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: While this discussion was ongoing, the article was pre-emptively deleted. Perhaps it might be restored so others might offer an informed opinion?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per above, the article was an entirely unsourced non-encyclopaedic review of the video. It has no indications of notability (straight to video!), no references, is a pov assessment, and contained two negative unsourced BLP comments, which I've removed following restoration.  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  11:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I wish to thank User:Jimfbleak for now restoring the article he deleted May 9, before this AFD had been closed... as an article folks can see has a far beter chance of being improved than one folks cannot. I can now see that as created by new user User:Gkparks1,  it was an unsourced stub.  I shall myself see if I can address the article's issues in a few hours and report back.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 13:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hungarian title:
 * Greek title:


 * Keep now... and allow continued improvements. While we can all agree that what was first nominated was unsuitable as an article, since the last coment toward deletion above, it has already been markedly improved though sources easily found. Admittedly there is more to do... but it serves the project to allow continued improvents, as delteion is not the best option when with just a litle work something can be improved to serve the project.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 16:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I had a look at the sources mentioned; I was momentarily swayed by the fact that one of them is from the British Film Institute, but it only appears to be a directory listing with no commentary on the actual film. I saw the Film Threat articles in my previous search, and they didn't look reliable to me (although I will admit that I have no great expertise in this area). If there are more references from reliable sources then it might be enough to sway me...  — Mr. Stradivarius  ♫ 16:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur with Strad and still !vote to delete. Still not notable. Since the standard for retention is "verifiability," not "verified," if you can just point us to the RS you say exist that's probably enough to switch this to a keep even if they're not in the article yet. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I also still say delete. Whilst I appreciate Michael's efforts, if this straight-to-video meets the notability criteria, it's difficult to imagine what doesn't  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  18:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Direct to video is not some automatic negative, as ALL films are judged by the same criteria, and Wikipedia does not demand that all films be big budget or be financed by major studios or have the same promotion and advertsising budgets as the Star Wars or Lethal Weapon films... and any film that did not have distribution, domestic or international, or lacked reviews or critical commentary in reliable sources might be seen as lacking notability. But since User:Jimfbleak summarily deleted the article yesterday before its issues could be adressed by anyone else, I can simply repeat my thanks to him for restoring the article so that the stub as originally nominated could be improved to better serve the project and I repeat that WORK IS ONGOING. And while some might wish to dismiss British Film Institute or even Rovi, those relaible sources are required by policy mandated confirmation of included information, and such required WP:V does not itself have to be significant coverage. BUT...
 * there was a strange assertion made above at 16:53, 10 May 2011 that reliable sources were not in the article. At odds with that assertion is the fact that at the time that assertion was made, the article included citations to Film Threat, a reliable source for film reviews and inteviews, long accepted by its peers within the film idustry and by Wikipedia... and that through them I had by that time used two significant sources... one a November 2004 in-depth interview of the filmmaker and a second a January 2005 lengthy review of the film itself.  And toward Film Threat, the articles were written by reviewer Phil Hall, a well respected expert within his field.
 * AND, as the improvements are not yet complete and an editor (me) has expressed a willingness to continue them, I cannot understand the wish by those who themselves have not or will not improve the article, to give it the bum's rush when someone else has picked up the slack. And again, improvements are still taking place... and as noted by some, the article is already in far better shape that when it was nominated. Wikipedia accepts that it is itself imperfect, understands that it is itself a work in progress, and immediatism is not a policy.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NF says that the following are not reliable sources: "Trivial coverage, such as newspaper listings of screening times and venues, 'capsule reviews,' plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as 'Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide,' 'Time Out Film Guide,' or the Internet Movie Database." British Film Institute and Rovi would clearly be included in those kinds of sources, BFI as a comprehensive guide and Rovi as a capsule review (and they're both probably not RS on general principle as well, though that discussion is unnecessary in light of WP:NF). Film Threat has been rejected as a reliable source almost always, as far as I can find, the notability of a film depends upon it. See, for example, here and here and here and, especially, here. I agree that the straight-to-video status is not controlling, but it does make it less likely, albeit not impossible, that there are RS which cover it. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC) PS: The New York Times review is also a capsule review which cannot establish notability. TM 21:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * With respects, you are unintentioanlly incorrect. The section you quote does NOT state that such sources are non-RS.  What the section addresses is WP:NF's consideration of the WP:GNG including "...published works such as books, television documentaries, full-length featured newspaper articles from large circulation newspapers, full-length magazine reviews and criticism..." and excludes from consideration toward notability "Trivial coverage, such as newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews," plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides..."  If an authored plot summary (such as the one from reliable source Rovi) has critical commentary, then it might be considered.  If it does not, then it would not be usable toward determination of notability, even though perfectly suitable as a citation confirming an article fact.
 * Further, you are also unintentionally incorrect is your comment toward Film Threat... a site which has long been held as a reliable source by Project Film. Your offered diffs do not support that allegation.. and do quite the opposite.Diff 1 shows how an editor found Film Threat articles to support a keep of an article after which the nominator withdrew that one film from his multiple nomination. Diff 2 shows an editor offering a Film Threat review of one film as "proof" that the filmmaker was notable. Diff 3 shows my own comment about finding a Film Threat article about a puppet-infested film article that had been speedy deleted before the AFD was finished, and my adviso that if more come forward the article might be worth reconsidering.
 * And so... Film Threat is a reliable source, and has been confrmed as such several times at both Project Film and inquiries at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. So I hope others do not also ignore the two in-depth significant articles used (so far) to cite the article... one a full-length review of the film and the other a full-length interview of the filmmaker... both in accepted WP:reliable sources.
 * What is also forgotten here, is that ANY fact that might be challenged MUST be verifiable, and such verification when offered in a reliable sources does not iself have to be significant coverage. Policy WP:V and guideline WP:GNG are not the same thing.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Note and in response to Transporterman: here are diffs that support the wide consensus that Film Threat is a reliable source for film articles... some of them even as early as 2004 (pre-dating my own arrival on Wikipedia by years):                         and there are many, many more.  It can be seen that even in discussions of film articles that were deleted, Film Threat was acknowledged as a suitable reliable source. Two seperate articles in that reliable source, one from 2004 and another from 2005, speak toward notability.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Further note. Even if film threat is RS, how does the film meet Notability (films)?  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  05:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I sure wish we were discussing a major film, as there is a growing tendency to limit inclusion in this encyclopdia to only those big budget films that have the major names and huge advertsing and distribution budgets... but WP:NF specifically instructs "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." And while more is always better, "significant" has to do with source content and not with quantity of sources.  Neither WP:NF nor WP:GNG demand dozens of sources, only that the coverage be significant, reliable, secondary, and independent of the subject, to allow a presumption to notability. That presumption toward notability, and the film (just) meeting WP:NF, has not been rebutted, only denied... and denial is not the same as actually proving the presumption to be false or incorrect.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Response: Okay, let's have the full quote from WP:NF:


 * (Emphasis added.) The "excluding the following" means that the listed sources are not reliable sources for the purpose of retention of an article about a film. Established consensus thus says that the British Film Institute, Rovi, and NY Times sources are not reliable sources for retention of this article. Indeed, this film appears to be exactly the type of film that the "excluding the following" section in WP:NF is intended to exclude from Wikipedia. Due to the breadth of coverage on the Internet any film which has had a commercial release of any kind — and many which have not — is likely to be listed at IMDB and in the other kinds of sources mentioned in the exclusion: the kind whose existence is recognized, perhaps even widely recognized, but which has not proven to be significant enough to draw substantial attention from multiple reliable sources. While Wikipedia may appear to only be including "big budget films that have the major names and huge advertsing and distribution budgets" the reason is that those kinds of films, whether they deserve it or not, draw substantial recognition from reliable sources. The result is that mediocre blockbusters will frequently get a near-automatic entry into WP while small or indy films will have to run the reliable-source gauntlet. That may not be right or fair, but that's the way it is. As for Film Threat, it is a fact that some articles have been retained and others deleted in which Film Threat was given as a reliable source. In this case, however, even if one accepts for the purpose of argument that it is a reliable source, it is currently the only reliable source and that's not enough to retain this article. The question of whether or not Film Threat is or is not a reliable source needs, however, to be resolved for future purposes, so I'm going to make a inquiry about it at the reliable sources noticeboard. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC) PS: The Reliable Sources Noticeboard discussion is here. TM 14:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Response: Sorry, but that quoted notability guideline section does NOT say that such sites are "unreliable", only that such are unsuitable for deternination of notability. WP:N and WP:V are not the same thing. While the required verifiability of information in an article must be in a reliable source, the source itself does not have to be "significant coverage" simply in order to be determined as reliable for the policy mandated verification of a proffered fact.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)  PS: The Project Film discussion is here.  MQS 18:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

If we must split hairs over terminology, you're correct: the notability guideline section does not affect reliability per se, it affects notability, "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article." And that's what is at question here. The notability guideline says, through the "excluding the following" section, that the listed sources cannot be used to determine notability, that is, that they cannot be used to determine whether or not a film can have its own article. Those sources may possibly be used to help document an article once it has been determined that the article should exist, and may be reliable sources in that context, but standing consensus says that they cannot be used to establish than an article can exist, which is exactly what we're about in this discussion. You're right about the terms, but that argument is irrelevant to this discussion about whether this film should exist. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Assuring accuracy of statement is not quite "splitting hairs", but thank you. It became neccessary to address the repeated unintentional mis-quoting of guideline that was then being used to improperly declare a reliable source as unreliable.  At no time is it ever required that a reliable source being used per mandated policy to confirm a fact offered in an article has to also itself be significant coverage.  Being brief does not equate to unreliability, as WP:N and WP:V are not the same thing.
 * And to the other issue: The reliability of a source depends on context, and each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context.  When the topic is a film article, we look to those sources that deal specifically with or about film topics, look to see how they are themselves considered within their field by their peers, and consider if they have editorial oversight and a reputation for fact checking and accuracy.
 * For information about films, we can look to Film Threat for their established expertise in their field. They are an independent secondary source with the neccessatry reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and have the respected reputation within their area of expertise to be themselves repeated quoted by and referred to by other sources within and outside that field.  We do not look to them for expertise on football or politics, as the reliability of a source depends on context, and contextually speaking, film is their field of expertise.  Film Threat is am established reliable source in context to what is being sourced, and the reasonable presumption toward even a weak notability has not been rebutted, only denied.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Reasonable nom on its face, but the improvements in referencing have reflected sufficient coverage to evidence its notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The New York Times has noticed this movie and we should do no less. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The New York Times page is just a short synopsis of the plot and nothing more - this isn't enough to make it a reliable source for our purposes.  — Mr. Stradivarius  ♫ 13:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but The New York Times has long been determined as a reliable source. That quoted notability guideline section instructs that use of pocket summaries are unsuitable for deternination of notability, but it does NOT say that such sites are "unreliable".  While the required verifiability of information in an article must be in a reliable source, the source itself does not have to be "significant coverage" simply in order to be deterimed as a reliable source for the policy mandated verifiability of a proffered fact. I have seen this mis-iterpretation repeated many times above, but please... WP:N and WP:V are not the same thing.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone's suggesting the New York Times isn't a reliable source in general - that is why I added "for our purposes". I admit that I could have probably chosen my words better, but this doesn't change the fact that the New York Times page is only a short plot summary with no critical commentary.  — Mr. Stradivarius  ♫ 06:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but when I read your statement "this isn't enough to make it a reliable source for our purposes", I read it as saying that even though it was used for policy manndated verification, it could not be considered a reliable souce simply due to its length... and to that I heartly disagree, as WP:V and WP:N are not the same thing. Had you said something like "as a verifier it does not in itself support notability... THAT would have been a senetence to which I could agree.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 09:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment to reviewing sysop: This is one of those cases in which the arguments must be weighed, not counted. I would contend that none of the "keeps" are based upon WP policy or guidelines, but all boil down to just "I like it" and should be disregarded. Once the sources are evaluated, only one, the Film Threat source has even any potential to be an adequate source to show notability per WP:NF and one is not enough to establish notability, even if it is eventually proven to be reliable. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Preposterous. My !vote was brief enough that it deserved a more accurate reflection than Tman's stark misrepresentation.  It relied on the core principle reflected in wp:notability.  I would also note that the view that this is a keep is overwhelming, when one looks at the !votes of the seasoned editors with more than 10,000 edits.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. It is preposterous to assert that other exprerienced editors do not understand policy or guideline when they offer their opionions. And as the nominator cautions against not counting heads, what could be more seen as "overwhelming" by a closer is that all delete votes included a repetition of the nominator's unfortunate and repeated misrepresentation of guideline... and incorrectly repeating that reliable sources are unreliable simply because what they offer per mandated policy might be brief, does not reflect an understanding of policy and guideline. We do not delete based upon misrepresentations.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This isn't the most notable film ever produced. But the WP:GNG is a simple, objective test.  Is there more than one source?  Check.  Are the sources independent?  Check.  Are they reliable?  Check.  Do they contain more than a passing mention of the subject?   Check.  Therefore the GNG is passed.  Discussion over. It's important that the vast majority of material that passes the GNG should be kept at AfD.  The GNG is simplistic and occasionally produces bizarre results, but the benefit of using it is that any editor can tell for themselves whether or not the article's subject will be kept at AfD.  In other words, the GNG is what enables good faith editors to write content without fear that it will be deleted.  If we start disregarding the GNG and using a scattergun "I don't like it" approach to deletion, then content contributors will be unwilling to write material without going through a committee process first.  It's hardly a desirable outcome. This line of thought leaves me with a very clear-cut keep recommendation, and props to Michael for his hard work during the course of this AfD.— S Marshall  T/C 22:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with everything you said here - apart from the keep recommendation! The way I approached it was this: Is there more than one source? Check.  Are the sources independent?  Check.  Are they reliable?  Check.  Do they contain more than a passing mention of the subject? Not BFI, Rovi, New York Times, or the Independent Film Distribution book. This leaves us with only one source, Film Threat, which I think probably just about passes the reliability test. This means that for notability purposes we have at best one reliable source. Was there another source that I missed?  —  Mr. Stradivarius  ♫ 07:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Two diferent articles, several months apart, and yes both from Film Threat. So? Guideline does not state that the significant coverage has to be from different sources. Also, the book makes specific detailed comentary about the film and filmmaker. Per the GNG, the book need not be solely about the film and filmmaker, just so as long as they are addressed directly and in detail.. which they are. And note: the authored Rovi summary contains critical comentary, so is not to be excluded from consideration.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 09:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I beg to differ. I make those articles two months apart, in the same magazine, by the same author. And WP:GNG says "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." Talking about the same author, the book Independent Film Distribution is also by Phil Hall, the author of the Film Threat articles. Even if we were to count the book as a separate source, the book only has a total of two paragraphs that mention Con Games, and these are concerned with the fact that if Eric Roberts hadn't agreed to co-star, then the film might not have been released at all. It doesn't have anything to say about the film itself.  — Mr. Stradivarius  ♫ 10:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My position is different from Michael Q Schmidt's in that I think two entirely separate reliable sources are required. The other one in this case is the New York Times.— S Marshall  T/C 11:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you should look at the New York Times page more closely before you consider it an acceptable source in this case. It is just a film directory listing, with no critical commentary at all. Also, the plot summary there is taken verbatim from Buzz McClain's summary at Rovi. A Google search for the first sentence turns up many such pages. This is likely an attempt by the Times to get on the New Media bandwagon, and shouldn't be mistaken for real journalism.  — Mr. Stradivarius  ♫ 13:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I think I may have found the source of the confusion here. Are you under the impression that a source has to contain critical commentary before it "counts" for the purposes of the GNG?— S Marshall  T/C 14:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the phrasing is "significant coverage". Neither I, nor the editors who wrote WP:NF, consider that this type of directory site counts as contributing towards significant coverage in cases like this. In fact, situations like this one are exactly the reason that WP:NF was written. <span style="font-family:Palatino, Georgia, serif;"> — Mr. Stradivarius  ♫ 15:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It is absolutely fascinating how none of the keeps choose to address the issue of what WP:NF says about notability of this film, as noted in the red box above. Calling things misrepresentations do not make them misrepresentations and the true misrepresentation here is the constant appeals to GNG when a more specific guideline applies and directly addresses the issue. If you don't like what WP:NF says, then you are free to seek to change that policy or to seek an IAR local exception here, but I stand by my assertion that what the keeps here are asserting is nothing more than "I don't like it" and should be disregarded by the reviewing sysop. The seven days for this AFD nomination have passed, so the sysop can judge who is misrepresenting policy. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 02:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course it is a misrepresentation. Look at my rationale for my keep.  Furthermore -- read wp:nf.  Which states:  "The general guideline for notability ... is that ...  A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."  As the majority of commenting !voters on the proposal have indicated, at this point in time the article satisfies that criteria.  The "more specific" criteria does not replace GNG.  It only adds additional indicia where the general GNG guideline -- the wp guideline for notability which is the dog, not the tail -- does not suffice. Perhaps you have not read GNG? It makes quite clear that if an article meets GNG, that is sufficient ... full stop. And that subject-specific guidelines are additional alternative ways to evidence notability. You seem to think, mistakenly (though energetically), that the rule is something other than it is.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * [ec] Though TM may have missed it, the "issue" has been soundly and repeatedly addressed... both before and after he posted his "red box" and continued with an unfortunate personal IAR mis-representation of guidline. If an editor can read, and can understand what he has read, and then has offered either a delete or keep comment based upon what he has read and understood, what is fascinating is his concern that editors well able to read and understand both sides of a discussion have not felt the need to repeat the points I have made or engage when all that need be said has been said.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * On this, I concur with Epeefleche and Michael Q Schmidt. The basic principle is that in very few circumstances can subject-specific notability guidelines overrule the GNG.  They are there to clarify and help us interpret the GNG, but they don't get to overrule it. There is one substantial exception, which is in geographical articles; Wikipedia is a gazetteer as well as an encyclopaedia so certain categories of geographical location (villages, towns, etc.) are not subject to the GNG.  Owing to longstanding custom and practice, high schools and certain kinds of astronomical entity (individual asteroids, minor stars etc.) are geographical locations for this purpose. A lot of the purpose of subject-specific notability guidelines is to help distract the kind of editor who doesn't write much content because they'd rather make rules about what other people can write.  The subject-specific guidelines help keep them from editing the main WP:N guideline and filling it with bloat.  But the fundamental test of notability is always the GNG, irrespective of whatever the half-dozen people who care about WP:INDIVIDUALEPISODEOFOBSCURESCIFITVSERIES or WP:PORNBIO might have agreed between themselves.— S Marshall  T/C 11:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I was wrong, and apologize for the drama, but still !vote delete — I've checked and discovered that S Marshall's analysis of the relationship between WP:NF and WP:GNG is basically correct. I didn't know that. I was wrong and I apologize to everyone for the drama. Nonetheless, even under GNG I think that acknowledgements of existence as in IMDB and capsule reviews are exactly the kind of sources that the significance element of GNG is intended to eliminate as sources for establishing notability (though they may be used as RS to document assertions in an article). That eliminates all the sources (and I would note that the NY Times source is clearly attributed to only be a repetition of one of the Rovi sources) except Film Threat and one source is not enough to support notability. I apologize again for my error and the resulting drama. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Spoken like a gentleman!— S Marshall T/C 16:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree w/S Marshall. One slight clarification to what S says ... It is sufficient if an article satisfies either GNG or NF.  It need not, however, satisfy both.  This is reflected in GNG.  Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:21, 12 May 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.