Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ballet of Change: Piccadilly Circus


 * 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   no consensus. seicer &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  19:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The Ballet of Change: Piccadilly Circus

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

nn film John MacReen (talk) 11:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Through my searches I discovered that Paul Atherton is running a campaign to raise funds for the National Centre for Domestic Violence by releasing his docudrama Silent Voices on DVD with all profits going to the charity - so I hope this deletion request is just coincidence.


 * This entry has been posted on Wiki for nearly 4 months with no issues. When The Ballet of Change was first drawn to my attention in November 2007 the online coverage was significant, it was mentioned on national radio sites, the online streaming of BBC news etc. which is why I believe it wasn’t marked for deletion in the first place and as the notes suggest in Notability is not Temporary “If a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic”. However, over the course of time, much of that live news has now been removed from the sites and much of the printed news is of course, not on line. The claim is that Paul Atherton was the first person in the world to be granted permission to use the Coca-Cola Billboard’s advertising hoarding to show a film on a world famous landmark. I believe that cannot be in contest. A quick search through Google using the term “Ballet of Change” brings the results of a variety of confirmation sources not least the sites owner (i.e. the Landlords of the Billboards) Land Securities on their Piccadilly Circus Lights Website Piccadilly Lights The British Film Archive at the British Film Institute where due to the notability of the film it has been secured in perpetuity at The BFI the acronym of NFA (stands for National Film Archive), The British Film Councils website Britfilms and in the listings magazine publication TimeOut, the industry standard magazine for the Broadcast Industry in the UK Broadcast and as it was Heritage Lottery Funded the funds can be proved to have been made from the source on the HLF website. As such I would request the NfD to be removed. I am the author of this article Amanda Paul (talk) 15:35 16 September 2008 (GMT)
 * Comments merged. For ease of reading, please use one bullet per comment. Thanks. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 00:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hers fold  (t/a/c) 00:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Letters to the editor written by the producer and press releases are non-notable per WP:MOVIE. I didn't see a single review in all those links listed in the article. VG &#x260E; 10:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, Remeber WP:NTEMP and the fact "The film was selected for preservation in a national archive." It passes WP:NF.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.   —Tassedethe (talk) 10:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Commander Keene I appreciate your corrections.  I am new to Wikipedia and have not had to defend my articles before - so your patience, understanding and corrections are much appreciated.


 * Many of my sources for both my articles this and the "Ballet of Change" will never have been or are no longer online - but I will happily provided them if you believe this helps.


 * The issue here though, must be, first and foremost, do the Wikipedians think the first person to have his film shown on a globally famous landmark (i.e. The Coca-Billboard in Piccadilly Circus, London) notable? If the answer to that question is No, then there is little point pursuing my lines of inquiry. In my opinion Paul Atherton's notability comes from his success at achieving a first - if The Ballet of Change is considered notable then by definition so does its creator and vice-versa.


 * Are we measuring notability merely by online press coverage at any given time?


 * For example, you asked where I sourced some of my references - Paul's University career was found in his Alumni magazine from Cardiff University and also referenced in the South Wales Echo (The National News paper for Wales) in 1996, which of course you wouldn't be able to source online.


 * HIs work career, such as his time at Prospect Television (at least in part) can be verified by an online presence Skillset arrange a "Lucky Break' at Production Show in 2002. However the remaining part of his career, Touch of Silk for instance was again referenced from the South Wales Echo South Wales Echo "Local business man rescues Revlon President" Pg 7 November 1994, The Sun Newspaper "Charles props up Naughty Knickers" Pg 7 December 26 1994, The News of the World, News In Brief Pg 3 "Brief Encounters" November 23 1994  , BBC Radio Wales, News Article Broadcast October 16th 1994 at 11:00am, Vogue Magazine, Diary Editor Clarissa Brooke Turner "A Touch of Silk - Something to remember " April 1995  to name but a few, but back in 1994 none of these publications had an online presence and they don't make their back copies available through online search engines but does this make them any less notable or reliable.


 * These references can all be checked publicly (as I've done) they just require an investment of time and Money.


 * His PR career can be tracked through the trade publications of PR Week. Articles like "Capital Gold - A Case Study" Pages 16-17,5 May 1998, "Harvard appoints new Account Manager" Pg 5, 9 February 1999 and "The Telegraphs' Match of the Day" Pg 28 4 April 2000.


 * This brings us up to date. I notice Vasile states that this is not IMDb.  However, IMDb's entries are rigorously researched by independent researchers and only allowed to be published when every fact has been checked (unlike Wikipedia).  Is this not a reliable source under Wikipeadia's definition?


 * As for Silent Voices this is available on Amazon and as you rightly pointed out in the Charities Trade Publication Third Sector so I think enough reliable sources for that.


 * But back to the Ballet of Change, here are some of the references to the articles published at the time BBC News (closed the programme) – Friday 23rd November 2007 18:55 – 19:00, Evening Standard, Pg 2 "Piccadilly Lights up its own History" 23rd November 2007, London Lite Pg2 "Films beamed onto Piccadilly Circus Ads" 23rd November 2007, Time Out – 20th November 2007 Press Association "Historic Film Event" 20th November 2007, London Paper "Lighting up History" 21st November 2007, LBC – Announcements throughout the day and mentioned numerous times by Nick Ferrari 23rd November 2007, Capital Radio (covered by Johnny Vaughan on his morning show) Thursday 22nd November 2007 08:30 – 09:00, Colourful Radio – Arts - (30 Minute interview) Thursday 22nd November 2007 between 14:!5 – 14:45 and again I reiterate these can all be checked but most can no longer be found online.


 * I have the cuttings for al these articles in PDF formats if you want them, but you cannot find them online. Either they were time limited such as the radio shows or the news story never made it from print to online in the case of The Evening Standard.


 * This is the link to the BBC news site which aired the event "The Ballet of Change" but is no longer current - instead it is showing this weeks news - as it changes every week.


 * Thank you for putting this up in the United Kingdom related articles. I hope some wikipedians from the UK will be able to assist me in my quest.


 * VG makes the point the film wasn't reviewed. I bring it to the attention of Wikipedia not to the content of the film, but the films achievement. A film of this nature, not expecting general release and having (as far as I know) not been entered into competition would not have received reviews.


 * I would also like to clarify that the press release on Land Securities website, is on their website and other than recording the event and naming Paul Atherton it has nothing to do with him. This proves that the owners of the Coca-Cola billboard not only acknowledge that the event happened but also that it was the first time a film had been shown there.  Why is it a Press Release published by a globally famous company about a third party would not be established as a reliable source?


 * And finally, could someone please explain why The BFI (The British Film Institute), which caries the largest film collection in the world and as such is incredibly selective in what it accepts as contributions, wouldn't be acknowledged as a reliable source?


 * Again, I'd request the removal of the NfD.


 * I am the author of this article Amanda Paul (talk) 20:43 19 September 2008 (GMT)
 * Delete If this work is important, there will be published reviews, not just blogs and press releases. DGG (talk) 01:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Per WP:NTEMP the fact that it is more difficult to find sources now does not eliminate its notability.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete I have carried out a search of Newsbank, an online database of full-text content for over 77 national, regional and local titles in the UK and Ireland going back three decades, which is accessed through the reference sections of libraries in the UK, for the phrase "The Ballet of Change". There is not one result. I conclude that it was not in the news at the time, clearly had no notability then and obviously has no enduring notability now. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, remeember the fact "The film was selected for preservation in a national archive." It passes WP:NF.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * P.S. Note for closing admin, Amanda has !voted twice. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment::Apologies Malcolmxl5 as I stated in my previous post I am new to this - it was not intentional - I'd be grateful if you could correct anything I have done wrong. I believe I've corrected it appropriately?


 * I'd also be grateful for the link to the Newsbank you mention the only one relevant to the UK that I could find was this Newsbank based in East Sussex, England. This could find no result for "Piccadilly Circus", "England Cricket Captain Michael Atherton" or "Richard Branson".  All the articles it was finding were East Sussex based.  A link would be incredibly helpful. I would refer you back to an early post about notability not being temporary in respect to your comments there.


 * No-one has yet addressed the question in regards to the British National Film Archive especially in respect to the notability guidelines in general notability .4 and also in terms of it being the first film to be shown on an advertising billboard (an accomplishment made even more significant by the fact that Coca-Cola gave up prime advertising time for it to be screened) in respect to other evidence of notability .5. As its is the nature of the films achievement and not the content of the film - many of the criteria normally associated with a film are difficult to apply.  For instance as previously mentioned it did not and should not be expected to get a general release.  The style of the film would not make it suitable for festivals or awards and would by definition never be reviewed (just taking into account of the size of the screen it was edited and broadcast on - it would make this an impossibility for a normal release it neither being 16:9 or 4:3 Formats).


 * DGG I refer you back to my previous post to VG in respect to reviews.


 * Commander Keane has requested the pdf cuttings I have referred to above by e-mail, which will be sent in due course. If he could confirm he's received them on Wikipedia I'd be very grateful.


 * It would be incredibly useful as part of this debate if Wikipedians would address the questions I have raised.


 * Are there any Wikipedians in the UK who could back me up - which leads onto another point. When we talk about Notability is it Global or Nationwide?


 * As previously stated in this discussion I believe this and Paul Atherton's AfD entry are intrinsically linked. Is there anyway of merging the two.


 * Thanks


 * I am the author of this article Amanda Paul (talk) 10:20 20 September 2008 (GMT)
 * Delete (I think Newsbank may have rebranded as NewsUK) Searching NewsUK for ballet change piccadilly (and variants) or piccadilly circus atherton produces exactly 1 relevant hit which is a 2 paragraph notice in the Evening Standard, a shortened version of the press release. (michael atherton or richard branson produce >1000 hits for reference). As regards the National Film Archive it seems from their page that they pretty much keep everything, notable or not. To quote from their collecting policy "It also includes new cultural products and records enabled by modern technology: moving images embedded or presented with sounds and texts; interactive computer games with close links to film culture; animated shorts produced with games authoring tools; CCTV and webcam images; works are created for websites, game consoles, PDAs and mobile telephones." I can't see being in the archive as enough to pass WP:N, otherwise every youtube clip or flash movie would pass. As to being the first film to be shown on an advertising billboard, again it has to be declared as notable by independent reliable sources. As the WP:MOVIE says ""This should not be too widely construed, as any film could claim a unique accomplishment such as "Only film where seven women in an elevator carry yellow handbags."" All in all no significant, independent coverage, fails WP:MOVIE Tassedethe (talk) 11:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment An extract from the British Film Archive Collecting Policy to be found as a Download


 * 4.2 Cultural significance
 * 25. The overriding criterion for acceptance into the national collection of moving image material for the United Kingdom is that the work should be of cultural and/or historical importance to the British people, recognising the diversity of British communities.
 * 26. Because this is the national collection of moving image material in the UK, acquisition of British-produced and British-related material will be prioritised over non-British material, especially for the preservation collection. However, much non-British material is also of cultural importance and some non-British material may be highly relevant to particular cross-cultural audiences for the reference collection.
 * 27. The bfi does not aim to hold a comprehensive collection, even for British- produced material. It aims to collect works that have or had real cultural impact, or historical significance, or that are highly representative of production, society or cultural values, or which are valuable for educational purposes or as information resources for study. Examples include: - High quality productions, where the production values and treatment are of a high artistic merit or information content.


 * And of course we are not talking any advertising billboard - we are talking about one of the world's most famous billboards in one of the worlds most noted landmark. If this isn't regarded as a unique achievement then I think the scope of WP:MOVIE needs to be revised.


 * I believe there is talk of doing it at Time Square, New York, next year.


 * I am the author of this article Amanda Paul (talk) 22:10 20 September 2008 (GMT)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  18:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NTEMP, as sources being harder to find now does not mean the article has lost its original notability.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: How is it that this Search be missed... finding lots to show notability??  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Could you single out the search results you find notable; all I see are wiki links, directories and video sites? As to WP:NTEMP, the film is less than a year old, and the article less than 6 months old, references for notability should not have disappeared in that time.Tassedethe (talk) 00:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure I'll dig through the sources. In the meantime, will you yourself tell me how you can "The film was selected for preservation in a national archive" as not applying to notability, even though this is direct quote from the guideline? The guidelines do not list what the specific archiving criteria must be, only that the film be selected for national archive. You do not seem to be denying that it was chosen, only that it must not be suitable for such... which the guidelines do not instruct.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As requested:  Tassedethe asked for a list of search results: "The ballet of change an historical film event", britishfilmscatalogue: "The Ballet of Change: Piccadilly Circus", timeout.com: "Ballet of Change", hlf.org.uk: "heritage Fund Lottery", Paul Atherton at Naymz, pablopost.co.uk: "“The Ballet of Change” film made history....", pressbox.co.uk: "Ballet of Change An Historical Film Event", hotfroguk.co.uk: "Ballet of Change An Historical Film Event", ftvvdb.bfi.org" "The BALLET OF CHANGE PICCADILLY CIRCUS", flicckr.com: "The Ballet of Change: Piccadilly Circus", bbc.co.uk: "Paul Atherton", web.mac.com: "The Ballet of Change: Piccadilly Circus", bebo.com: "Paul Atherton, 'Producer, Simple (TV) Productions'", broadcastnow.co.uk: "Broadcast Letters - November 9", flickr.com: "The Ballet of Change, Odeon Cinema, Leicester Square, "United Kingdom" London GBR", et al. I myself feel these sources in context and support combine to show notability.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * However, and even if all these sources are ignored, I am still waiting to learn why the guideline's specific instruction of "The film was selected for preservation in a national archive", can be ignored. Closing Admin, please take note of this film being preserved in a national archive per WP:NF.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep: per the sources that MQS found. Also, the film was selected for preservation in a national archive which shows notability. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 01:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment on sources I still don't see a single reliable source in the list above. It includes press releases (not independent), bebo and flickr (self-published), and trivial coverage e.g TimeOut. As to the national archive, I assume that notability guideline is aimed at covering films that get accepted to something like the National Film Registry. That archive contains 475 films. The BFI archive contains "more than 50,000 fiction films, over 100,000 non-fiction titles and around 625,000 television programmes" . My earlier comment still applies, the much lower notability threshold for this archive should not automatically confer notable status on an accepted film. Tassedethe (talk) 05:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Question, Can you show me where the specific crieria for "preservation in a national archive" are spelled out...? Else I'd have to continue believing that it being archived meets the ootability requirement.... as it should not matter if a national archive has 100 or 100 thousand or 100 million films. Thank you,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes it can, take a look at WP:NF. Also once notable, always notable. I looked at a few of the sources and I didn't notice that they weren't reliable and not independent. But like I said before, once notable, always notable. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 06:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I totally agree. Its notable now even without the sources.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. And clean-up. Newby editor is making a good faith effort to comply with concerns. Sources on article and here show this wacky promotional event did get coverage and the films are a part of a museum exhibit. There's enough here to craft a good article out of it all.  --  Banj e  b oi    07:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per DGG. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Stifle could you please explain why you think this title should be reviewed per my other comments to DGG and VG?


 * Tassedethe I really must take issue with your notion that the most important film archive in the world has "a lower notability threshold" than a section in a library, albeit The Congress one. The National Film Registry is just a small collection housed in a relatively small library, whose existence needs to be renewed by government every couple of years (this current run being just 7), whose selections are made by a Librarian and which, has only been around for a few years.  To compare that with the BFI which has existed for nearly 80 years, exists in perpetuity and its selections are made by the most significant players in the Media industry (not just in the UK but on a global playing field) including in the past the actor  Lord Richard Attenborough, Film Directors  Sir Alan Parker and Anthony Minghella (who would have agreed to acquire the Ballet of Change titles) and the current Chair of the BFI Greg Dyke who headed up the BBC from 2000-2004, the most important media position in the world - seems somewhat ridiculous. The BFI hosts the London Film Festival and its Archive is responsible for saving films that otherwise would be lost to the world. The size of the collection and the running costs of hosting such a vast array of media, means that the selections are more NOT less significant when a title is accepted.


 * I am the author of this article Amanda Paul (talk) 18:06 24 September 2008 (GMT)


 * 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.