Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relentless: The Struggle for Peace in the Middle East (2nd nomination)


 * 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. No arguments for deletion other than the nominator's.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Relentless: The Struggle for Peace in the Middle East
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:GNG/WP:FILM absent significant coverage in reliable sources. Don't let the number of GNews hits fool you - they're almost exclusively WP:ROUTINE announcements of scheduled screenings, not reviews or discussion. What we have of discussion is a eight-sentence brief in the Jerusalem Post and a couple of one- or three-sentence mentions elsewhere. Was kept at AfD a few years ago, but editors then were (let's be generous) misled about the nature of the many sources which are actually community announcements. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. If nothing else is to be added in this discussion to further strengthen the film's notability, suffice it to say that at least two of the sources listed in the first debate satisfy WP:GNG's requirement of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"; those sources are Miami Herald and Jewish Journal. Both sources are reliable per WP:RS and independent of the subject. The coverage in the sources is significant per GNG's definition of "significant": "sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content"; each article mentions more than just the screening information, it addresses the subject in detail. If it seems that either of those two sources, or any other ones for that matter, do not speak of the film as the main topic, GNG also specifically states that "significant" coverage does not require the subject matter to "be the main topic of the source material". Further, the information in both articles is stated explicitly so that WP:OR is not violated. In my opinion, the first debate addressed the issue of notability in a permanent manner and this re-hashing of almost identical arguments is somewhat unnecessary and really presents nothing new regarding the issue. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Dude, a 400-word (which includes the street address and all the sponsoring organizations) announcement, possibly paid for, of a scheduled screening (Miami Herald) is not significant coverage, nor is a couple of sentences in a long article (Jewish Chronicle). You must have forgotten to quote the part of GNG which says that significant coverage must be more than trivial. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Significant" in everyday vernacular English ≠ "significant" as described by GNG. The statement to which you refer ("Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.") still, in my opinion, easily describes the coverage provided by the two sources. I'll admit I may be wrong in my interpretation. However, this was all covered in the first nomination and I think that a second nomination for deletion, when the result of the first one was "keep", really should present new arguments in order to be successful. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said, I think a lot of the keep votes cited routine coverage, which policy specifically exempts from demonstrating notability. "Previous keep voters were misled about admissibility of the sources their !votes relied on" isn't an invalid argument. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to HonestReporting. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. In addition to the two sources mentioned in Big Bird's well argued comment to keep (Miami Herald and Jewish Journal), a third reliable source providing significant coverage is a 2003 review in the Jerusalem Post (convenience link here: ), where the film is the focus of the entire review. A fourth is the detailed review already used in the article, from the Wisconsin Jewish Chronicle,, and I've just added a 5th, from 'J' - the Jewish news weekly of Northern California . The nominator uses very misleading language in describing the coverage of the Jewish Chronicle as 'a couple of sentences' - that sources dedicates its 4 opening paragraphs to the subject. The claim that a 422-word review (Miami Herald) would be too short to qualify as significant coverage, if due to length alone, is laughable. I don't have access to the full article, perhaps the nominator who apparently has such access can share a link or e-mail the full content so we can better judge the rest. Jeff Song (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As I've already stated, the problem with the Miami Herald source is that it's a WP:ROUTINE announcement, which policy specifically states cannot be used as the basis for an article and which may be a paid listing. It's also pretty misleading of you to say that the Jewish Journal review devotes four entire paragraphs to the film when the paragraphs are one or two sentences long. Trivial coverage is trivial. I already mentioned the JPost review, but even if it weren't about as short as a piece can get and still be on the borderline of "significant," one source won't support an article. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree that it is a routine announcement, esp. if it is more than 400 words long. Can you share the full text so we can judge? Trivial coverage is defined as routine announcement about showing times and the like. Four paragraphs in an article about mid-east documentaries is not trivial coverage, even if those paragraphs are short. Jeff Song (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * How many times do I have to cite WP:ROUTINE before someone will go and read it? Planned coverage of scheduled events and announcements cannot support an article. I'll see if I can post the full text later. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * we don't know if the article is just an announcement about a planned screening, and I seriously doubt if that's the case when we're talking about a 420 word article. Please provide the full text so we can judge. In any case, it is one of 5 articles with significant coverage. Jeff Song (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that it begins with the announcement that the film will be screened at such and such an address, cosponsored by X, Y, and Z, isn't obviously an announcement to you? And again, all but two of the sources you're citing are WP:ROUTINE coverage of events which is specifically exempt from admissibility, and one of those two is trivial. It may be popular, based on the announcements, but popularity is not enough for an article - we need significant coverage in reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I typically try to withhold judgment on the contents of a 422 word article when all I can see are first 80. You obviously have different standards. I'll ask again, (third time now, by my count) that you let us in on the rest of the article, so that we can judge (assuming of course, that you read the rest. You did, didn't you?). And no, none of the other 4 articles  are anywhere near WP:ROUTINE coverage. That you would think that leads me to believe that it is you who has not read that guideline, or has not understood it. Jeff Song (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I read the guideline which explicitly states that "routine news coverage of such things as announcements...are not sufficient basis for an article. Planned coverage of pre-scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine." I don't know what fictional guideline you're reading. Here's the Miami Herald:
 * "Relentless: The Struggle for Peace in Israel, an hour-long documentary on the Middle East conflict, will be shown at 7:30 p.m. Monday at Temple Sinai of Hollywood, 1400 N. 46th Ave., Hollywood. The evening is being co-sponsored by Aish of South Florida, Young Israel of Hollywood, and Temple Sinai of Hollywood. The film uses video clips to focus on the history of the Middle East conflict and show how the peace process unraveled into a surge of violence. The movie was produced by Discovery Production and is not rated. Due to some graphic footage of recent violence in Israel, recommended for viewers 18 and older. Admission costs $5. For tickets, call 888-883-4726 or order online at www.discoveryproduction.com."
 * The rest of the 422 words are an announcement for something else - a screening of a film called A Price Above Rubies. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The Miami Herald is clearly routine, and can be excluded from further discussions. The other 4 are not. Jeff Song (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You are, of course, free to believe that "planned coverage of pre-scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it" is not routine coverage, but I'm afraid WP:ROUTINE disagrees with you there. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You are, of course, free to believe that this, a post-screening, highly critical review of the film (calls it "one sided" "propaganda"), constitutes "planned coverage of pre-scheduled events", coming from "those involved in the event" who "are also promoting it" - and I will draw that inescapable conclusions about your reading comprehension skills. Jeff Song (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you read that article very thoroughly - it's not critical at all and is, again, coverage of an event rather than of the film. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It dedicates 5 paragraphs to the film, not the event, and describes it as follows "Even those most ardently pro-Israel would concede "Relentless" is a work of propaganda: sincere and gripping, but propaganda nonetheless. " - if you think this is "not critical at all" - well, you reconfirm my conclusions about your reading comprehension skills. Jeff Song (talk) 23:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You are, of course, free to believe whatever unsupported things you want; it's a free country. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I am not familiar with the history of this article, but I see it was moved in 2007, so I guess it has been around for a many years. Not sure why many Wikipedians are actively working to remove so many notable, verifyable, etc, articles, that have survived on Wikipedia for years?  Ottawahitech (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:LONGTIME. Article age is not an argument for keeping it, and the fact that it isn't notable is exactly why it's being nominated for deletion. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I notice that you recently targetted for deletion several articles started by User talk:CltFn, including  this particular article - I wonder why that is? Ottawahitech (talk) 06:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have Twinkle, which automatically notifies the creators of articles I propose or nominate for deletion, and when I noticed that a number of the articles I'd proposed/nominated recently were by the same user, I began to wonder how many other non-notable fringe subjects the user had created articles on. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 07:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is good that those who started articles are notified, but I still don't see the point of spending time here in deletion discussions about borderline articles. Surely there are more important things to do at Wikipedia, such as whittling down the humungous piles of stub articles, building categories, and much, much more?
 * LOL, I do enormous amounts of categorization work, but how is this relevant? We're having a deletion discussion now. Let's discuss the article, rather than dancing around with all this meta-reasoning about how we could be doing other things. If you didn't want to participate in the discussion, you didn't have to. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not mean you personally, I meant all the wiki-man-hours spent in AFD discussions. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If AFD is such a waste, why bother coming here with your keep !vote? AFD is a part of the site governed by processes and rules/guidelines just like any other part of the site; you are not required to come here, but since you're here, please produce something better than "keep because no one should delete anything ever." –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not here by choice, but by necessity. Many volunteer Wikipedians have contributed to the article in question - and the effect of your nomination will wipe out their contributions. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is true of many AFDs - why is it so important to keep this non-notable film from being deleted? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per big bird and jeff. Mythpage88 (talk) 01:56, 31 January 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.