Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Kennedy: One Man's Journey


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 22:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Matthew Kennedy: One Man's Journey

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested PROD but original reasoning still applies. "Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Article was created by the film's director, who has a long history of promotional editing. All of the reliable sourcing either is actually about the subject (AKA doesn't mention the documentary at all) or are passing mentions in relation to a non-notability conferring award it received at the Nashville Film Festival." Two new sources have been added, an NPR interview and post by a Huffington Post contributor (i.e.: non-reliable). Deleting and then redirecting to Matthew Washington Kennedy might be most appropriate course of action. GPL93 (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lack of independent sources. Notability not apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC).
 * Delete and redirect per nom. I haven't found a review of the film from a reliable secondary source. WP:NFO calls for two reviews from nationally known critics. I don't see it meeting the film-specific requirements or WP:GNG. The two sources recently added by the director are interviews. It is my understanding that interviews are primary. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete the fact it was made by the creator is reason enough. Clone commando sev (talk) 02:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * COI is not grounds for deletion, afaics: Deletion policy & Criteria for speedy deletion --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per Xxanthippe & DiamondRemley39; I reach the same conclusions after my own gsearch. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Zero suitable coverage. Don't even redirect, don't accommodate likely COI single-purpose account in using Wikipedia as an SEO vehicle. (I don't believe this is an WP:AGF breach, given the user's account name combined with their practices.) Largoplazo (talk) 12:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

If you delete this article, you will be contributing to the lack of diversity on Wikipedia. One would be left to conclude that this lack of diversity is intentional and deliberate. Nina07011960 (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


 * doesn't the racial bias article have serious Original research problems? Clone commando sev (talk) 00:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * If the article is deleted because it doesn't meet the requirements for inclusion, then one will be left to conclude that it was for the reasons abundantly spelled out in the deletion discussions and in the guidelines on which those discussions were based. They will also be left to conclude that we don't make exceptions for articles posted by authors who ignore the pointers to Wikipedia guidelines that make it amply clear why these articles are getting nominated for deletion and who choose, instead, in bad faith, to attribute other editors' actions and comments to ulterior motives rather than to those guidelines. Largoplazo (talk) 15:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I second Largoplazo's comment above, and concur that the accusation from Nina07011960 was made in bad faith. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 22:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment : after reading your comments here and on the talk page, I'd like you to please read WP:RGW. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - There is already an article on Matthew Washington Kennedy and information found in this documentary (if verifiable) could be used as a source over there. Since this article is about the film, it cannot stand because the film itself has received insufficient notice, as everyone has described very well above. Meanwhile, a much better way to inspire diversity at Wikipedia would be to repair the problems at Mr. Kennedy's article. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 22:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I would be very reluctant to attribute frustration to bad faith. That term is usually applied only to deliberate attempts to interfere with our processes. It should not have been used here.  DGG ( talk ) 23:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * we have always had difficulty in covering material from areas and fields for which there are not mainstream sources. This is due to the basic orientation of WP on determining coverage by the existence of sources, and sometimes our own ignorance, not a deliberate attempt to decrease diversity. If anything, we make a special effort to be flexible in order to increase diversity in all its aspects--- at least in the fields where I usually work. --, perhaps you can help here--you work sometimes on similar films and people connected with them. --   I would advise serious consideration to a merge with the article on  Matthew Washington Kennedy--this material  can always be expanded to a separate article when  more sourcing is found.   DGG ( talk ) 23:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * DGG, we weren't saying Nina was acting in bad faith, we said she was implying that those who are recommending deletion are acting in bad faith. "Assuming good faith... is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith," with "good faith" linked to the Wikipedia article that explains it in the ordinary English sense. Nina was implying our edits and comments have not been made in good faith. Further, "Rather, editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of such." For example, attributing the prospective deletion of an article to an intentional opposition to diversity, i.e., malice, to nefarious motives not in Wikipedia's interest. Largoplazo (talk) 00:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with DGG who suggests merging the article with the biographical article on Matthew Kennedy. The time to create an article on a film is after it has gained dissemination and received press.  When the time comes that the film has received more published attention, then it might be considered to fork the article on the film. - kosboot (talk) 00:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I did a search in Google for everything matching "Matthew Kennedy: One Man's Journey" and went through the results; you can see the sources I found and my notes on the article's talk page. It would appear that, though reliable, secondary, and independent sources have mentioned this film, usually in passing in a larger bit about Matthew Kennedy, there is not significant coverage, and thus it does not appear to be notable on it's own. I am in support of a merge, provided that everything merged can be sourced. Vermont (talk) 02:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Nina Gamble Kennedy already has a paragraph on this film, so I would have expected there to have been discussion about redirecting there as a viable alternative to deletion. (not watching, please )  czar  03:00, 25 May 2020 (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.