Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Big Gay Musical (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The result was   Withdrawn. – sgeureka t•c 17:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The Big Gay Musical
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not seeing any significant sourcing. Per WP:NFILM the only real coverage we get from multiple sources are some flash-in-the-pan reviews and that only from less-than-prominent sources. No indicating of notability. After doing some of my own sleuthing I found a non-review that addresses my concerns. Withdrawing nomination.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 23:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per multiple in-depth reviews being available. For example, one of the many easily found sources available to improve the article is a quite decent full-legth review and analysis in Variety... and we have significant coverage in Afer Elton and New York Cool and DVD Verdict and DVD Talk and Theater Mania and Eye for Film and Twit Magazine and Rich Cline and Out Impact and others. We expect such sources, even the less-than-mainstream ones, to review films or genre-specific topics... and the ones I listed by name are not simply capsule reviews nor trivial mentions, but are instead in-depth and significant coverage of this film. WP:GNG and WP:FILM are soundly met and addressable issues of an article needing improvement are rarely sufficient cause for deletion of notable topics, despite their subject matter.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per multiple in-depth reviews being available. Too many mainstream sources review the film. Stubby or Start-class status does not mean it should be deleted. - Tim1965 (talk) 01:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Ignoring that most of those sources are exactly the kind of sourcing I was saying is not valid for proving notability (reviews shorter than your average letter to the editor on some obscure sites are not enough) one of the few that just barely goes beyond is rather revealing in this comment: "DVD Verdict was sent a promotional copy for The Big Gay Musical . . ." So, what are the chances most of these reviews are also the result of them being given a free copy of the DVD? Notability does not mean, "I managed to find sources" as quite a large number of non-notable things could be kept on that basis. I think what is most telling are the lack of reviews prior to the apparent flurry of promotion before the DVD release. So, just tack on to my rationale WP:SPIP. Of the only remaining sources one is an obscure local magazine doing a review around the time of the film's premiere in the city. So, After Elton is really the only decent source in the bunch provided above that goes beyond a trivial or routine mention. Now I think this should be deleted even more.-The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 04:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * By their being significant, in-depth, and independent, most of the sources you dismiss are quite the opposite of what you claim, and are indeed both significant in coverage and substantial in content. Read WP:NRVE.  Notability is dependent upon sources being available, and not their immediate inclusion in the article.  And it does not matter one whit if a reviewer goes and sees the film in a theater or watches a screener copy.  My finding and offering sources during a deletion discussion is a perfectly proper service to others who may visit this discussion.  You are incorrect to assert that significant coverage in multiple reliable sources fails the instructions for determining notability as defined at WP:NF, and incorrect to assert that the in-depth sources as I offered above are somehow brief and inconsequential, when in fact the opposite is true and others joining this discussion will be able to esily determine this for themselves. And you are further incorrect to dismiss pre-production and post-release multiple commentary and review of this film in multiple reliable sources as simply a "flash-in-tha-pan, as that mistaken concept runs directly afoul of WP:Notability is not temporary.  No matter the film's topic, we do NOT expect continued and ongoing coverage of a film.... just so long as it can be determined that it did have such coverage in the first place... and this one did.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you read my comment fully you would see that the "independent" part is actually in question per WP:SPIP. Also, WP:NFILM specifically mentions "capsule reviews" as being trivial coverage and a capsule review doesn't have to be a single sentence. That the sources you are citing are all reviews, save for one brief bit of routine/trivial coverage, is itself disconcerting. Were it truly notable I would expect more than that.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 14:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I read it, fully. As the article has been built through the efforts of multiple editors over several years, it is not "self-promotion", nor is its direct coverage "indiscriminate". As the reviewers did not finance nor have part in the film or its production, they are independent of the topic, and it does not matter whether their reviews stemmed from their having seen the film in a theater or from their having been sent a screener copy. Had their been but one minor review of the film you might have a point, but as it has been the recpient of coverage by multiple independent reliable sources, WP:SPIP is inapplicable.  How we determine reliability of a source is set at WP:Identifying reliable sources and, as has been repeatedly pointed out, the lengthy, in-depth, substantive coverage I found are are NOT "capsule reviews".  By way of an ignored example, Variety offers the analysis and comentary that we expect in a long-acepted reliable source. Wikipedida does not kowtow to or offer coverage of "only" the big-studio, major-financed, highly-touted blockbusters and, as not every film gets a headline in The New York Times, we quite reasonably look to those reliable sources whose self-accepted task IS to review those smaller-budgeted, widely-seen films not made by the big boys. What is "disconcerting", is your possible misunderstanding of the intent of WP:N and WP:NF and your expectation that a lessor film "must" have the same level of coverage as major projects such majors as Harry Potter or Star Wars. If you wish to propose elsewhere that WP:N and WP:NF be rewritten to align themselves with your viewpoint, fine... but as written WP:GNG and WP:NF are both soundly met. Coverage of the topic meets policy and the applicable notability guidelines.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Please do not make assumptions about what I think is worthy of inclusion. I think independent films no one has heard of are worthy of inclusion should they be notable. This is not notable. Not every gay indie film should get its own article. Your reasoning would basically make that the case.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course not "every" film merits its own article, but that's an attempt to run off on a tangent about other topics. My reasoning as to why this one has met the criteria for notability is that the proffered sources are indeed both significant in coverage and substantial in content, no matter you dismissing them as if they mere capsule reviews, when they were in fact significant in coverage and substantial in content. Read WP:NRVE.
 * The nice quantity of quality significant coverage found for The Big Gay Musical as a topic may not be available in all cases and for other topics... and while not applicable to the the topic being discussed, the lack of such in other instances is why I quite often opine a delete for topics that fail the inclusion guidelines. However... and dispite your protestations, this instance is not one of those meriting deletion. Read WP:NRVE.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: Per The Devil's Advocate. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 06:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep sufficient to meet WP:Notability (films). Fæ (talk) 08:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per multiple in-depth reviews being available and enough to meet WP:Notability (films). ~dee  ( talk? ) 08:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep These reviews are all fairly lengthy. I'm pretty anal when it comes to the "significant" criterion and...I mean, this passes, with flying colors (IMO). Additionally, it is standard practice for reviewers to review promotional copies of movies sent to them, just as it's standard practice for reviews of major films to be conducted after free, invite-only press screenings -- the major release equivalent of a free promotional DVD. That in no way violates WP:SPIP. Indeed, for all implications of a sullied review by sending a promotional DVD copy, I note with interest that the DVD Verdict review is negative. Not that that matters, either way. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  15:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ginseng, from what I can tell, the director is all about self-promotion. If it is truly "standard practice" to review a promotional copy sent to them, then that just makes this routine coverage. Reviews from third-tier sites that rarely exceed the standard length of a letter to the editor after being sent a promotional copy of the DVD screams WP:SPIP and WP:ROUTINE. The only coverage we get that is not from a review is some routine coverage of screenings. Were this truly notable I would expect some significant non-review coverage of the film by a national indie or LGBT news outlet independent of a local premiere.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 16:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand me, I think. While it's standard practice for reviewers to review films that are promoted to them, that does not mean that all reviewers review all films that are promoted to them. They select which ones to review, making the coverage non-routine. The same practice is present in the music criticism world. Music critics receive zillions of promotional CDs every month. They don't review all of them (indeed, they generally review a tiny fraction of them). And reviews are, per WP:NFILM, perfectly acceptable coverage. That you'd prefer to see non-review coverage of a premiere is essentially immaterial if the relevant notability guidelines have already been met. (Note: I understand that you dispute whether the reviews meet the first criterion of WP:NFILM -- please don't interpret my last comment above to mean that I think you are objectively incorrect) ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  16:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't presuming they review all films that are promoted to them, though we don't know anything about the indivdiual credentials of these sites so we can't say how comprehensive they may be in reviewing films and only one of the in-depth reviews comes from a nationally-known critic. However, if someone asks you to review a movie called "Big Gay Musical" you may feel more inclined towards reviewing that than a film with a less ostentatious title.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * All more or less true :). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  18:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As the nominator has no way to crawl inside a reviewer's head to determine their thought processes, his suppositions are immaterial to the fact that the film WAS reviewed by multiple independent reliable sources. He might go to the reliable sources noticeboard to seek having such as Variety (magazine) declared unreliable, and there question thier independence and editorial oversight and expertise for reviewing films... but he will be hard pressed to have such long-standing consensus overturned.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q.
 * Here is what DVD verdict says about their reviews: "The majority of our reviews are for product sent to us by studios, distributors, and PR firms . . . It's true, there are gaping holes in our review catalog, but trust me when I say if we had the monetary resources, we'd cover everything that comes to market." So it seems they pretty much do review whatever comes in to their people. DVD Talk doesn't have anything quite as blatant stated on the site, but they have over two dozen people doing just DVD reviews and a significant chunk have between 1,000 and 2,000 reviews, with one member of the staff having done nearly 3,000. Looking at just the three who do Blu-ray reviews exclusively (some of the people review both) they have already gotten at least 3,500 reviews combined. I think DVD Talk and DVD Verdict are basically just generating as many reviews as they possibly can and shouldn't be considered when gauging notability.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite nice that the one particular reliable sources tells us that they'd love to be able to review more films. Almost any reliable source would tell us they wished they had the resources to do more. But so what? Go read WP:RS to understand how a source may be considered reliable enough even without their being all-inclusive. Your choice to omplain on the non-issue of a source's wishing to be able to review more films does not translate to the others nor make either their review or the reviews of such as DVD Talk and Variety et al, somehow disamissable.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It isn't that it merely wishes to review more films. They seem to be saying that they try to review everything they get, something that suggests there is no real selection going on at all. Seems a significant number of the sites provided fall into that category, and all but two of the remaining sources being significant reviews, i.e. not a capsule review. It would be like someone citing Wisegeek to demonstrate notability.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 15:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The simple fact that they say they'd like to review everything indicates that they don't review everything and must instead select what to review. Ipso facto, they are selective. Concluding that there is "no real selection going on at all" in response to a site saying that they don't review everything they receive doesn't make any sense. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  16:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think the purpose of requiring "selection" was meant to apply to sources where their "selection" is only based on time considerations and the need for additional funding or employees. Just because they don't literally review everything doesn't somehow mean they would not be invalid under WP:NFILM as comprehensive review sources.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 18:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The general notability guideline stipulates that in order for a subject to be worthy of a standalone article, significant coverage that addresses the subject in detail is required. The spirit and the letter of the guideline are concerned with having enough content to write articles from a neutral point of view... and THAT is excatly what we have. Wikipedia does not concern itself with whether or not a source admits they wish they had more resources so as to be able to review more films.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Significant amount of coverage in secondary sources. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong keep You have got to be kidding me. One of the claims is that the only reason this film was ever reviewed was that the studio sent out promotional copies? Son, if you ever worked in the media, you'd understand that this is how virtually all small indie films (and even some major films) get reviewed. Have you ever noticed that movies are often reviewed before they are released in theaters? Do you think that happens by magic? Also, do you think music critics have to wait for all of the songs on a CD to be played on the radio before the critic reviews the album? Ridiculous, and ignorant. The only reason why I can imagine this particular film being targeted, given the many mentions in the media, is homophobia. Wikipedia is not censored. I regret having to play that card, but this nomination makes no sense whatsoever. PorkHeart (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You are way, way out of line with your homophobia comment. Please assume good faith and be civil. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  02:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That response about promotional copies is understood, but missing the point. If the only reason it is being reviewed is because they got sent a free copy of a film with an ostentatious title then the review in itself should not be considered to satisfy notability unless the review is from a notable critic or major source, I include major niche sources as well. Anyone can watch a movie and then write three or four paragraphs summarizing the plot of a movie and leaving some comments. Hell, someone who gets paid to do it could watch three or four movies a day and write 300-400 word reviews on each one. Seems Eye for Film, another one of the sources provided, also does that whole "review as many movies as conceivably possible" thing just like DVD Talk and DVD Verdict. I think sources like these would be the kind of "comprehensive review" sources mentioned at WP:NFILM as being invalid for demonstrating notability.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 15:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Your suppositions and conjectures are not in line with how Wikipedia determines a source's reliability. And that is the point you are perhaps misunderstanding. The general notability guideline stipulates that in order for a subject to be worthy of a standalone article, significant coverage that addresses the subject in detail is required. The spirit and the letter of the guideline are concerned with having enough content to write articles from a neutral point of view... and THAT is excatly what we have. Wikipedia does not concern itself with whether or not a source admits they wish they had more resources so as to be able to review more films.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:RS. The reliability of a source is always an issue in this sort of discussion. Even traditionally reliable sources can be unreliable under certain circumstances.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure... there are even portions of The New York Times that are considered unreliable. However, I have no doubts about lengthy and inciteful film analysis and commentary found in multiple reliable sources specifically accepted by consensus as suitable for offering the contextual commentary they do. You are welcome to disagree... but please note though, that editors here are finding the gaping holes in your arguments.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The reliability of these sources with regards to notability is an issue. I am not taking a position on whether they are reliable concerning commentary about the film, but whether they are reliable for establishing notability. Only two reviews provided above appear to be clearly reliable in that respect and that is not enough.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You may have a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikiedia's notability standards.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per Schmidt: There is significant coverage by multiple reliable sources on this topic. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - The sourcing is sufficient to establish notability. I'll note that being sent a review copy does not necessarily compromise editorial integrity.  Major films often have press screenings for critics but we routinely accept movie reviews as evidence of notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that reviews can be evidence of notability, but my objection is that these reviews are generally capsule reviewsthat are not evidence of notability and many of the longer ones are in sources that appear to aim at being comprehensive review sites that review as many films as they can. Most of the reviews only popped up during the time of the DVD release in sources that are not even prominent within their niche and it appears to have basically been an attempt by the director at carpet-bombing reviewers to notch up mentions.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A capsule review generally is a short paragraph. The links offered above are multi-paragraph commentary and analysis... offering more than a "capsule review" and are in fact inciteful in context and substantial in content. Your continued insistance that a multi-paragraph inciteful commentary and analysis is "capsule" almost makes me think that you have never actually read the reviews. As for you complaint that a fillmaker might be proactive in getting his film reviewed... so what? that complaint is irrelevent, as all filmmakers wish to have their work reviewed (and many are not) and it both anticipated and expected that an filmmaker will promote their work. Just as with ANY topic, if it is not worthy of note, the reliable sources would decline ofering commnetary and analysis. And that a few of the many reviews were of the DVD release is irrelevent. Wikipedia does not expect nor demand that a reviewer must tavel the world tracking down films so as to watch them in theaters.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Generally" a short paragraph is just it. Capsule reviews can be a single paragraph or they can be a few paragraphs.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 19:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The general notability guideline stipulates that in order for a subject to be worthy of a standalone article, significant coverage that addresses the subject in detail is required. The spirit and the letter of the guideline are concerned with having enough content to write articles from a neutral point of view. THAT in-depth and substantive significant coverage in multiple reliable is exactly what we have, and the point you seem to be missing. We do not need all to be substantive, just so long as enough are so that we have enough content to write articles from our own neutral point of view.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It also concerns what Wikipedia is not. A product should only get its own article if it can be established that it is of some lasting relevance, even if that relevance is only in a specific niche. Otherwise Wikipedia ends up being a form of advertising.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 20:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A long-lasting social relevance is NOT an inclusion criteria, but IF it were, it could be argued that the film does have relevance to LGBT community. If you wish to discuss a tangent demanding eternal relevance, that discussion might be better discussed over at the various notability boards and talk pages.  HERE, we're discussing a topic which has received enough coverage over a long enough period to be seen as worthy of note. It's really that simply.  We're not discussing the long-lasting social impact or relevance or Wikipedia "advertising" a Big Mac or a Whopper.  If the tone of any article on any notable topic were to become a problem, addressing future issues would then be a matter for regular editing, and not a matter of conjecture over something that may never happen.  As EVERY article is expected to be encyclopedic, verifiable, and properly sourced, a discussion here of "what Wikipedia is not" becomes a bit of a stretch, specially when this article does not fail WP:NOT.  Articles on ANY topic no more "promote" or "advertise" those topics than do any of the millions of other articles within this encyclopedia.  Per both policy and guideline, what this and other encyclopedic articles offer is contextual and sourced information to aid our readers in understanding the topic... and THAT'S "what Wikipedia is all about".  As it has been repeatedly explained to you, this topic meets our inclusion criteria... and there is absolutely NO expectation or demand that coverage of the topic in reliable sources be either eternal or have worldwide impact.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q.
 * The Variety review is significant coverage, as is the New York Cool review, and I do not see these as sites which attempt to comprehensively view every film that they can. These two items in conjunction with the lesser reviews is sufficient in my opinion to satisfy notability. -- Whpq (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment, I wish some more people would express a delete opinion, just to see if The Devil's Advocate would challenge their rationales with such long debate. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:44, 28 March 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.