Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deconfliction


 * 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 - while the debate about sourcing is stretched to the point of irrelevance, all the sources only point to the existence of the documentary (not its notability)'''. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 07:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Deconfliction

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable. Searching for 'deconfliction transgender' returns no books or news articles, and only mirrors of ghits. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Such a list could go on forever, and there is no organizational elements which makes any sense out of what is there. Examples are sufficient (main article) without adding an endless set of more examples. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Er...was that supposed to apply to the next AfD (Bildungsroman examples (pre-1930))? I ask because the mentions of an interminable "list" and an "endless set of more examples" would make sense for that AfD, but don't seem applicable here.  Not that I'm necessarily saying this article shouldn't be deleted, just that the particular reasons you cited make it appear to me that your comment may have accidentally ended up in the wrong AfD... --Smeazel (talk) 22:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Er, er, er... You're right! Very sorry. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  09:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  09:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Tried a few different search parameters and found plenty to show notability., , .  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Thanks for pointing that out, but none of the sources you added get the article to pass WP:NOTFILM, the notability guidelines for films. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Response. It has been well received at a number of festivals, So I've kept digging. I found these: IndieExpress interview of Edward Tyndall, NewYorkBlade (paragraph 14), and the NewYorkCool review of film. It is still cycling and more will appear. It is an indie film after all... making the festival circuit, and not some blockbuster. For what it is, and in carefully weighing WP:MOVIE, and considering "sufficient verifiable source material exists to create an article in an encyclopedia", it just squeeks in with notability.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * IndieExpress is not a reliable source. The three sentences in the NY Blade are not "significant coverage".  I'm not sure about New York Cool - that *might* be a good source of info. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * With respects, WP:RS specifically states "How reliable a source is depends on context." We are not speaking about Quantum theory... we are speaking about a short film. The Indie Express context is an interview of a filmmaker. The New York Blade paragraph is a report about a transgender film. Based upon Evidence of Notability guidelines, which guideline relies on the policy at WP:V, where a Reliable Source must be considered in relationship to the claim being made... as in "The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context" and "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality sources", in the context offered, and in that no exception claim is being made, the IndieExpress and The New York Blade pass WP:V and subsequently WP:RS for this film. Further, The New York Blade, being a "weekly newspaper for gay and lesbian community of New York City", must be considered for their offering of a minority viewpoint and, for what they offer, they pass WP:RS. Significant coverage" must be judged the same way. WP:RS does not expect a low-budget short film to be judged by the same standards as a multi-million dollar feature. Where a block-buster might have received reams of coverage, an indie short may have bare sentences. It does not have to be a manifesto. Three sentences are not much, but they are significant enough.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 16:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Context here means films, not films of a certain length. Short films, like short stories, are less likely to achieve independent notability, because they are short. I see nothing in the article to set this apart from other film projects, and the article also doesn't mention the runtime and disagrees with IMDB on the production date. The only hint that this isn't an hour long is the limited subject matter. Which contributes to non-notability. Potatoswatter (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You're quite correct... the context is about a film... a short film Which is why the guidelines are less stringent for short films, else there would be very few short films listed on Wiki. That fact that this film deals with a transgender individual gives it notability to the LGBT community. That also limits mainstream coverage. For what it is, who is seeing it, and for what it shares to that community, it has notability. As far as production details... those maters can be reserached and added to the article. There lack does not remove notability, only neans the article should be cleaned up.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No. WP:FILM does not distinguish by length. Few short films do have articles here and having an article is not like being "listed." Read FILM again for yourself and see if you can find that kind of source. Potatoswatter (talk) 06:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No? Yes. I have read the guideline WP:NF: "...a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." WP:NF states that it "...gives some rough guidelines..". It does not state that it is an absolute. Further, I have read the Evidence of Notability guidelines. The guideline is based upon the policy WP:V, "one of Wikipedia's core content policies", which states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability". Further, WP:NF relies on WP:RS where one may read that a reliable source must be considered in relationship to the claim being made, as in "The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context" and "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality sources". And since "Other evidence of notability" allows an editor to consider other factors in a film in considering its notability, I am allowed to consider the relationship of the subject matter to the LGBT community. I am allowed to consider the story of a transgender individual who speaks of the causes for gender identity issues. I am allowed to consider that a short indie film does not have the promotional or distribution resources of a major feature. I am allowed to consider its notability in relationship to its smaller audience and its smaller press coverage. WP:NF and "Other evidence of notability" allow me to do just that. So with the greatest of respect, I think the article squeeks in with (slowly growing) notability (even if minor). You are as welcome to your opinion in this discussion as am I. I do not think anything I say will change your mind, just as it is unlikely that you will change mine. Thank you.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No review = no RS. I looked at all the references, and two weren't copies of the same synopsis. They both dealt (briefly or generically) with the filmmaker himself rather than the movie. Small coincidence that the article's content mostly reflects the synopsis, which most likely is ultimately by the filmmaker in contradiction to RS. Potatoswatter (talk) 08:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "No Review" is not the issue, as reliable source does not madate that an RS must only be a review. Per "Verifiability: Reliable Sources", a source may be considered in relationship to the claim being made, as in "The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context" and "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality sources". And since "Other evidence of notability" allows an editor to consider other factors in a film in considering its notability, I am allowed to consider the relationship of the subject matter to the LGBT community. I am allowed to consider the story of a transgender individual who speaks of the causes for gender identity issues. I am allowed to consider that a short indie film does not have the promotional or distribution resources of a major feature. I am allowed to consider its notability in relationship to its smaller audience and its smaller press coverage. WP:NF and "Other evidence of notability" allow me to do just that, so I will adhere to my points as made above. I respect your interpretation of guideline, and I respect the guidelines... but again, "policies take precedent over guidelines"... guidelines are just that... guidelines. In deciding WP:N, per policy, I am allowed to consider all factors. I have done so. Further, there is always the most basic policy of all: WP:IAR, which recognizes that time and events and needs change and so encourages boldness in improving Wikippedia. The article needs attention, but can be improved. Wikipedia is better for it being here addressing a film that has growing notability to the LGBT community. So again, and with the greatest of respect, I think the article squeeks in with notability... not the notabilty of a multi-million dollar, highly promoted and touted blockbuster... but a notability nonetheless. Thank you.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete. I don't think that the proffered sources are enough.  Eluchil404 (talk) 07:24, 30 August 2008 (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.