Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peaceable Kingdom (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The result was Keep, withdrawn by the nominator and no additional votes for deletion. (NAC) Cavarrone 07:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Peaceable Kingdom (film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There really is very little evidence of notability in this one. Sources are primary or unreliable, and it doesn't seem to have been widely released. A couple mentions by very minor film festivals probably don't push this up to notability. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. while not-for-profit fringe documentaries rarely meet the criteria of WP:NF, we do not expect independent docs to have the same coverage as do mainstream for-profit films. But coverage in such as Sentinal-Record, Plain Dealer, Verdict, Abril (Brazil), multiple books, and slightly less substantial coverage in such as Time-Out, Political Media Review, Princeton Environmental Film Festival, Mindful Metropolis show the intent of WP:NF is met. Article needs work, not deletion.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 01:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * A couple of those are very weak evidence, take the "Verdict" cite. The entirety of the reference to the film there is "I have chosen not to show this film, however, and instead to begin the course with a film called “Peaceable Kingdom: The Journey Home” that has been carefully edited to limit the sorts of images that could cause viewers mental and emotional distress.  The film is gentle in its exposure of what happens to animals whose milk, eggs, and flesh are consumed."  - there is literally not another word discussing the film. The Plain Dealers text consists of "an artist friend living on the west side, who is a committed ethical vegan, had me watch 'Peaceable Kingdom: The Journey Home' which made me realize just how horribly animals are treated before they are slaughtered."  - we need more than trivial coverage to reach the general notability guideline, but you've just iven a mix of sites we'd need to debate whether they'd count as reliable sources that have non-trivial coverage with better sites that have trivial coverage, which doesn't move us forwards at all. Now, I have nothing against the film itself (it came up in a review of a few articles) but I am a Wikipedian. Adam Cuerden' (talk) 03:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That you choose to single out that "couple" may be "weak" and quote the text of one is fine, but does nothing to refute the others that are strong... and restating the obvious, I am also a Wikipedian. But as an Admin and Coordinator of Project Film (less obvious), I understand that WP:SUBSTANTIAL is not a guideline or policy mandate and weak WP:GNG is GNG none-the-less, thanks.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 08:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, you've proven your point before, so I suppose I do need to check everything, and not just go by the ones I did check so far.
 * I do think you should check your sources a bit better. is not going to convince people. Including weak sources makes me a lot more suspicious by the time I come to the other sources. Of the sources, the best are  and . I'd rather they weren't sourced to the movie company's website, but they're decently long writeups that at least look professional. I don't know much about the newspapers they're from, and them being on the movie's website is a downside. The books are... hard to evaluate, as you have to first decide if the book's a reliable source, then figure out what it says about the movie. I don't think we have a smoking gun yet, but I'm leaning towards WP:AGF. The article doesn't have any other issues besides notability being in question, can we do anything to settle that point firmly? The requirement's non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources. Two major newspapers or review sites with decent coverage would be more than ample. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I offered as many as could be quickly found, and even the least of them is suitable under WP:V for verifying simple facts. And it must be remembered that WP:SIGCOV instructs that sources need not be only about a topic being sourced in order to support notability. I have struck the Timeout link so let's not get bogged down in old minutae.  The the filmmakers chose to archive the lengthy articles Connections Magazine and The Sentinel-Record is wonderfully helpful to us under WP:NTEMP... and note: The Sentinel-Record has it's own archive of that page for registrants... the filmmakers just made it easier. Added, we have lengthy reviews in  Political Media Review and DVD Talk. Is this the same level of earth-shattering coverage as some big-studio for-profit blockbuster-film? No. Is it enough for us here in Wikipedia according to WP:NF? Yes. We do not need dozens. Thanks.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 23:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I think we've reached the level where we can move forwards with confidence about notability, particularly as there's no other issues. Withdraw. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2015 December 28.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 07:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone  12:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone  12:32, 28 December 2015 (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.