Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keeping the Kibbutz


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 05:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Keeping the Kibbutz

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Advertisement for a non-notable documentary; "sourcing" includes blogs and the like (hate to do this; sounds like an interesting film about a sad development). Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  20:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Although I am new to Wikipedia, I have invested considerable time and effort into trying to compile a useful and informative list of films about the kibbutz, a project that I'm a little surprised hasn't already been undertaken and one that I'm sure will interest future readers and hopefully motivate them to add to my work. I believe Keeping the Kibbutz is an important part of that catalog, even though it has not received the critical attention one might have hoped for.  And though I am unfamiliar with Wikipedia's rules of discourse and etiquette, I take some exception to the article being dismissed as a mere "advertisement".  I have no stake in the film, personally or professionally.  The remarks by the blogger in question add, I think, a thoughtful contextual dimension to our appreciation of Keeping the Kibbutz and ought not to be too quickly dismissed because his reviews are published on a blog.  I'm not sure what the "and the like" comment is supposed to indicate.  Expand or revise the article by all means, but I urge you to reconsider and vote to keep it. - ColdNorthWind2 (talk) 02:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per WP:NF. This film has received a major award and has received several full length reviews by nationally known critics. Marokwitz (talk) 09:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Can you point out the "major award" this film has won? Can you point out the full length reviews from natioanally know critics? -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - I have reviewed the sources in the article and conducted my own searches and unable to find the sourcing needed to establish notability. The first reference in the article is a press release which asserts that the film won a Telly Award.  There is no coverage about this aside from the press release.  The reason is that the Telly awards are not a major award, and in fact, they are handed out willy-nilly like candy.  The second source is an interview with director Tessa Moran and not a review of the film.  Interviews are weak sources for establishing notability.  The third source is a blog.  Blogs are not reliable sources with some exceptions; this is not one of those exceptions.  Actually, the best reliable source is listed in the external links section in the form of the Washington Jewish Week review of the film.  I will note that the person doing the review is a staff writer, and thus would not be one of the nationally known critics asserted by Marokwitz above. -- Whpq (talk) 15:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep A surprising lack of coverage considering the PBS broadcast, including a dearth of Hebrew coverage, to be best of my ability to find it via Google. But I think the article may just squeak past WP:GNG per the Washington Jewish Week review, the Indiewire interview about the film, the Telly Award as well as that DC film honour. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - The Telly Award isn't really an award. Just try finding coverage about the award as opposed to the tons for press releases self-congratulating on "winning" the award.  There's no fixed number of winners, and in fact, there's generally lots and lots of them.  See  which is the 2012 Commercial Silver Winners.  There are 23 winners that begin with the letter A in this category alone.  I think its clear how much recognition this award brings.  You pay your money and out pops an award to place into a press release. -- Whpq (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point, yes, it was sloppy of me to not look into the Telly thing further, the Wiki article gives a pretty clear impression. Which brings me down to just 2 RS (imo), including failed efforts at Hebrew refs. I'm down to neutral. Really surprised the PBS airing didn't yield more, even if it was on local affiliates (as appears to be the case) rather than a flagship program such as POV. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as lacking in depth coverage in reliable sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Spinning Spark  13:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per just meeting WP:NF through coverage in mulitple reliable sources. A "staff writer" writing an article about this film is perfectly acceptable, as theere is no mandate that films can only be notable if reviewed by the (subjective term) of "nationally known" film critic. THAT desire, though nice to have. is not part of guideline's sourcing requirements. We have no realistic expectation nor demand that Roger Ebert or The New York Times could or would review every film ever made. Any film, including indepedent niche films must meet WP:NF, and this one does.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - The note about the staff writer reviewing the movie was specifically addressing Marokwitz's claim of "several full length reviews by nationally known critics." That review is useful for counting towards notability.  But is is the sole review that has been provided.  The only other usab;e source is the interview.  Evaluating sourcing is not simply counting to two and stating the referencing is sufficient automatically.  The sourcing for notability is extremely weak in this case. -- Whpq (talk) 01:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As more is available even if not offered by Marokwitz, the article is on my "to do" list requiring work.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, looking at current sourcing it does not seem so unnotable. Appears to pass GNG. Cavarrone (talk) 00:24, 30 November 2012 (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.