Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ballet of Change: Piccadilly Circus (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 merge to Paul Atherton. Lacks a strong rationale to outright keep given scarcity of GNG, however, there is also a clear desire to preserve important material here, and merge into the main Paul Atherton article has the strongest consensus. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 19:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

The Ballet of Change: Piccadilly Circus
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Only asserted claim to notability is being in collection of BFI archive. Their collection of 100,000 non-fiction films is expansive, not selective. The NFO criterion for notability requires a highly selective national archive (the US example given accepts very few films and has only 750 in its entire collection.) HouseOfChange (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment as nominator. The existence of this obscure and trivial film is supported by only two RS: a press release touting it as "an historic event" and a brief collection record in the British Film Institute archive. It has not been "selected for preservation in a national archive" as per WP:NFO, it has been warehoused among 100,000 other non-notable films by the BFI which exists to "encourage" British filmmaking, not to curate the many films made in Britain and select the best. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * could you please strike out your ‘Delete’ vote and replace it with ‘Comment’. Nominators are not supposed to vote on their own nominations. Thanks. Mccapra (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I did not know that. Thanks for letting me know. HouseOfChange (talk) 07:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep The British Film Institute is a National Film Archive as cited by the list Wikipedia (National Film Archives) provides, however the "example" of a National Archive given by Wikipedia of a small collection of populist films in the Library of congress, selected by public vote ("The Librarian of Congress makes the annual selections to the Registry after reviewing thousands of titles nominated by the public"), is not. The British archive is curated by film experts and the only films that make the colletction are those that have an "Historical or Cultural import to the British People", not ones that are deemed popular by the general public. The size of the archive should have no bearing whatsoever on notability decision making, especially considering variants that effect that size, including the duration a collection has been going and the number of miscellaneous objects collected alongside films, such as programms & communications surrounding the film, as in the BFI's case. The Stanley Kubrick Archive at University of the Arts London for instance is made up of 1.000's of items although Kurbirck only made 13 films in his life.


 * Equally the film's notability is not established by popularity, though the press coverage at the time of screening seems to have been signiificant (though not accessible online ten years later), as each film in the series of The Ballet of Change were broadcast onto London Landmarks, St Martin-in-the-Fields at Trafalgar Square, Odeon Leicester Square in Leicester Square and the Coca-Cola Billboard in Piccadilly Circus and screened in entirety with the London Bridge film at the National Portrait Gallery, London over a single evenings event in the West End of London, the press coverage, a measure of popularity, is no measure of its notability.


 * There could indeed be an argument for changing this article to the Ballet Of Change Series incorporating details of all four films


 * 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. Itsallnewtome (talk) 18:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/ talk ¦ contribs \ 18:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. This film lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Above from someone who claims to be new from this but is clearly not is not convincing. BFI database holds over 800,000 titles. That's not the selective that makes for notability. Less than half listed in that database are actually in their collection. Sources presented do not even verify that this is actually preserved. Without any independent coverage this should be deleted. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment, I would suggest commenting on an editor personally is in breach of Wikipedia's guidelines WP:PA (Comment on content, not on the contributor). That said each entry cited clearly shows that for each film, two formats are held in the collection one as "DVD" the other as "HD Cam SR Video" the nature of the youth and formats of the films means the listing of "preservation pending" is not to wether the film will be preserved as it's collection into the archive establishes that, but the film has not been checked to see if it has decayed. The wikipedia criteria is "preservation in a National Film Archive" (NFA), to ignore the collections criteria is to ignore the purpose of a Film Archive altogether and the British Film Archive is considered one of the most respected and oldest in the World (e.g. the small collection of 2,000 Victorian Films). So if this isn't deemed by Wikipedia as an NFA on the basis of it's size and heritage then it follows no NFA's should be used. As the film was created for a one off West End event broadcast onto the London landmarks represented in the films Piccadilly Circus, Trafalgar Square & Leicester Square, it did garner BBC News coverage as already stated, though the citation being over twelve years ago is no longer accessible. There seems to be some bias here to big budget movies with huge PR & marketed driven distribution and commercial films, rather than films that are truly notable Itsallnewtome (talk) 13:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. can you please be more explicit about why the BFI should not be considered under Criteria 4 of WP:NFILM? I would like a more thorough explanation before making a decision, because ignoring a policy guideline to my mind needs a more convincing argument than the one you provided.4meter4 (talk) 02:05, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note. I got a reply to this query at User talk:HouseOfChange. I am going to quote it here on behalf of User:HouseOfChange who is currently in China and unable to edit this discussion due to their unique restrictions. He states, "Most notable films meet WP:GNG. Some films that never got substantial coverage in independent media may still be notable, that is why WP:NFO exists. WP:NFO sets a high bar in each of its categories, because only films that fail GNG get tested by them. For example, criterion 3 a film that won "a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking. Similarly in criterion 4 the benchmark for being "selected" is set high: the US National Film Registry selects only 25 each year. (It selects films based on quality or importance, not popularity.) BFI is a prestigious group that tries to collect all the best new films every year. I intend no disrespect to the BFI when I say that the hundreds of thousands of films they have selected and archived did not instantly become Wikipedia-notable on their selection."4meter4 (talk) 10:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Selective Merge/Redirect to Paul Atherton. The Ballet of Change: Piccadilly Circus does not have enough significant coverage to satisfy WP:SIGCOV, and the argument that the BFI inclusion is significant is not convincing based on the analysis provided by HouseOfChange. That said, some of the content would be valuable as a subsection in the article on the artist himself. There is no reason why the film couldn't be covered on that page.4meter4 (talk) 11:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment If the bar is set by the Public nominated films of the Natioanl Film Registry in the subsection of the Congress Library which I repeat again is NOT a National Film Archive by anybody elses standards, it means ONLY those films would meet notability and therefore the use of the term National Film Archive should not be used as a requirement for notability. You can't cite an example that is not replicable. It is the only Film Selection done by public nomiination in the world. All other National FIlm Archives are curated by film specialists and house a vast array of film types and miscellanea. The majority of films in the Library of congress are commercially released films this means that you exclude all other film types that are significant and notable and is the very antitheses of why a National Film Archive exists in the first place. And at no point in the above selection criteria for the BFI above does it say "the BFI collects the best films in that year" as User:HouseOfChange suggests, it says it collects what is ""Historical or Cultural import to the British People" if you deem that not to be notable, then Wikiepdia is no longer an encyclopedia but an advertising conduit for mass produced films, as with big budgets come big media and if the assertion of notbaility is based on popularity as the Library of Congress is by public nomination, then curatorial excellence in art or production is utterly eliminated.Itsallnewtome (talk) 12:09, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. I absolutely agree with you that it is an extremely exclusive choice to use as an example. Unfortunately, I have to use the policy example given as my guideline as a reviewer because that example was placed there through community consensus. We have to use the policies as written, and not the policies as we wish they would be.4meter4 (talk) 16:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment  As advised I'm going to take this up under the auspices of a Notability discussion, but as I leave here, I would like to know why the BFI National Archive is listed as a National Film Archive by Wikipedia, but the National Film Registry is not? This may help "Have all of the Registry films been preserved? Working with motion picture studios, independent filmmakers, archives, museums and historical societies, the National Film Registry of the Library of Congress seeks to ensure that a selected title either has already been preserved or will be in the future" so they don't even house or preseve the films, it is just a list. Itsallnewtome (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The disambiguation page National Film Archive is for actual names, and is not a category page but a search tool where articles that share common actual names can be listed. A former official name of the BFI National Archive was "National Film Archive" which is why it is on that disambiguation page. The National Film Registry has never been known/ referred to as the National Film Archive so it it does not belong on that disambiguation page. The National Film Registry is a part of Category:Film archives in the United States. Best.4meter4 (talk) 22:46, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment The 750 films selected for US National Archive are Wikipedia-notable, per WP:NFO #4. This does not require that each of the 50,000 feature films, 100,000 nonfiction films, and innumerable TV episodes selected for BFI archive ought to have its own article. WP:NFO sets a high standard in each of its categories, because only films that fall far short of WP:GNG have to pass even one of these tests. I would agree that Ballet of Change passes the test of "mildly interesting films that one is happy to see preserved for the future in BFI archives." HouseOfChange (talk) 03:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Dear as you've agreed elsewhere on Wikipedia on this issue. that the National Film Registry is simply a list of films that the Library of Congress select and the actual preservation and archiving of the films is done by other institutions (that in themselves wouldn't be considered National Film Archives as their selection are not national but local e.g. Hollywood) can you plesae stop being so disinegnous as to refer to it as an "archive" when it clearly is not. It's simply a list. It states itself as such by using the term "registry"  No preservation is undertaken and the Library of Congress doesn't even hold a copy of the film.  The requirement of wikipedia is "preserved into a National Film Archive" as the NFR neither holds films nor preserves them, then the example clearly can't apply. The numbers are simply meaningless, if a National Film Archive  by Wikipedia's standard deems a film notable, whether it holds 1 or 200,000 isn't the issue. The notability is established by the collections criteria, not by the numbers the archive holds. I believe your argument would hold water if the collections policy was to collect everything ever made, but no film archive makes that claim. Just using the numbers you've provided for the BFI that's less than 1,500 films collected every year, since film began, out of the tens of thousands of potentials every year, that's conceivably less than 1% and whilst you're clearly entitled to your opinion, I'm sure you wouldn't test it against a team of films experts whose decision it is to decide what should warrant the cost of tax-payers money to preserve in perpetuity for the nations interest, which is what it clearly states in the BFI's collection policy. Itsallnewtome (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge/redirect to Paul Atherton in lieu of deletion. I was unable to find significant coverage about The Ballet of Change: Piccadilly Circus in my searches for sources. Cunard (talk) 00:25, 4 November 2019 (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.