Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Forgotten Refugees


 * 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. Overall consensus is to Keep (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 23:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The Forgotten Refugees

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a propaganda film from a propaganda organization (some wider context is here and regarding the funding organization's founder here). Reading WP:NOTFILM, I am not sure whether the Marbella International Film Festival counts as a major award. Strangely, despite this award, I could not find meaningful coverage of the film in WP:RS. And I could not find any WP:RS reviews. The Marbella award aside, I do not believe WP:N or WP:RS is established here. Pinging article creator as well. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - being a propaganda film is not an argument against notability whatsoever. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 00:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Fully agree. But the propaganda context is important as it should invite a healthy level of skepticism as to the article and as to the forthcoming deletion discussion. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, skepticism about the article required. But that's more of a thing that should govern editing and protecting the article, not so much deletion. As an analogy, we have an article on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of perma-blocked editor, and his contributions to this discussion should be discounted accordingly. 107.10.236.42 (talk) 03:47, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - in addition to reiterating what AllGloryToTheHypnotoad wrote (that this is not a valid argument for deletion whatsoever), this film won 2 awards at international film festivals, which meets the notability requirements for films. I have also added numerous mentions in reliable  sources (easily found, by anyone trying) that attest to notability (screenings at hearings at the UN, the US Congress' Caucus on Human rights, etc..) which satisfy the WP:GNG   When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 05:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * So why are there no WP:RS reviews of this film? There is something fishy here. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There are - e.g. - . When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 15:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That is not WP:RS. The publication is produced by the AJCongress, which like the David Project, is a right wing advocacy group. The two organizations even appear to have some connections to each other. Can you find a neutral and unconnected WP:RS? If this film is notable, surely that would not be difficult. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It is an academic journal - available in hundreds of university librarries - check worldcat. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 16:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It has an agenda connected to the subject of that article, so is clearly not WP:RS in this context. Again, if this film is notable, surely you can find a neutral and unconnected WP:RS? Oncenawhile (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It is an academic journal, as the citation I gave you shows. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:PERSONAL. You've been banned once, you haven't learned a lesson, so you're gone unless you start apologizing for abusive tone and behaviour. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 00:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it is not. It is not peer reviewed. It is the journal of an advocacy organization. Many advocacy groups have such outlets. They may be ok to use for certain topics, but are to be treated with extreme care for wikipedia purposes, given their funded agenda. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It is, in fact, peer reviewed.
 * Yes, it is, from the same source: "Judaism: A Quarterly Journal of Jewish Life and Thought is an academic journal"  When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 19:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have the answer. The Marbella Festival is run by New World Films. New World Films is the film distributor for this film, responsible for its marketing (see here). So the "award" is almost certainly a self promotion. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * further comment - Given the nature of today's internet and the amount of cruft that can be sourced nowadays, I doubted the AfD nom's assertion of WP:RS failure. But I've just done a cursory Google and have found little mention of this documentary beyond showings at minor film festivals, which looks fishy to me too - I know how easy it is for artists to fake notability through walled gardening. The topic of Jewish expulsion from Arab lands is quite obviously notable, but this 15-minute doc seems not to be. However, I'd caution people to perhaps look for Hebrew-language sources before deleting. That's why I still reserve my !votinating. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - http://www.timesofisrael.com/un-jewish-refugees-panel-aims-to-correct-history/ - Describes a screening of the film at a UN panel
 * http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/123047#.VocilJMrKV5 - Describes a screening of the film for the US Congress
 * http://www.nytheatre-wire.com/bj06021t.htm - Feature from New York Theatre Wire
 * http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2012/10/the_forgotten_refugees.html - Mentioned in American Thinker
 * https://www.questia.com/magazine/1G1-149590116/the-forgotten-refugees-remembered-in-film - Review in "Judaism"
 * Incidentally, the film was screened at my synagogue when it first came out. The synagogue is Sephardic, and several of the Mizrahi congregation members shared their personal accounts of escaping antisemitic persecution. Sad to see some people on wikipedia trying to deny it. Drsmoo (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Regarding the links you have provided, the two Israeli newspapers give only a sentence each describing just the existence of the film with no description or detail at all. The other three are not WP:RS (the first is a local theatre blog and database, the second is a conservative advocacy website, and the third is a non-peer reviewed journal for an advocacy organization connected to the producers of this film). Oncenawhile (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That is false. The mentions in the Israeli newspapers say the film was screened at a UN panel on Jewish refugees, and at a US Congress hearing on that topic. That, alone, would satisfy WP:GNG. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * How? WP:GNG says ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail", yet neither of those sources provide any detail. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC) my
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NF being established above under WP:NRVE. And though some may feel the subject non-notable or slanted (an addressable issue), per WP:ARTN and WP:NNC, topics with coverage merit inclusion. Time to address tone and not delete for lack. it is expected that Jewish sources would cover a Jewish topic. Simply up to us to maintain neutrality and balance.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 15:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, please could you provide your analysis behind your conclusion that WP:NF has been established? Oncenawhile (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Really? Well..."if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list".  Further, under WPV and WP:SIGCOV, the topic being sourced need not be the sole topic discussed in a source.  So the lengthy article in JWeekly is not trivial. Archived by Questia, the lengthy article in Judaism: A Quarterly Journal of Jewish Life and Thought is not trivial. The mention in Times of Israel is not trivial. The lengthy article in American Thinker is not trivial. The interview in C.A.M.E.R.A. is not trivial. So my "analysis" is we have enough sourcing for an eleven-year-old documentary film per our community standards, thank you. We do not need the same amount of sourcing as we have for Jihad or The Patriot to be notable.  But rather than re-argue or try to convince of how we apply the consensus-created community standard, I invite you to read, study, and attempt understanding of WP:GNG, WP:NF and its WP:NF, and understand that whether anyone might personally believes] a topic is irrelevant, under WP:ARTN and WP:NNC we objectively judge by its sourcability, and not by any subjective "perceptive". Thanks,  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 21:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, I am confused. You say the American Thinker article is not trivial, yet the mention of the film is just one short sentence in passing? So it fails the "in detail" requirement of GNG. American Thinker is also definitely not a WP:RS. You mention CAMERA, which is definitely not WP:RS. You mention the journal "Judaism..." from AJCongress, which as described in detail above, is not WP:RS. You say the Times of Israel mention is not trivial, but the reference to the film is indirect and they don't even say what it is about. So it fails the "directly and in detail" requirement of GNG. Am I missing something? Oncenawhile (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are... several things. The guide's instruction for "directly and in detail" does not also mandate a non-policy non-guideline WP:SUBSTANTIAL. And you seem to intentionally avoid discussing the nice coverage in Jweekly while and ignoring that a source being used does not have to be 100% about the topic being sourced... and that a pertinent source discussing in detail the themes and history that inspired the film is not exactly trivial. And just where is your support from WP:RSN allowing your (unfounded) declaration that an authored review in American Thinker or the review in the academic journal "Judaism: A Quarterly Journal of Jewish Life and Thought" from the American Jewish Congress are somehow unsuitable for sourcing a Jewish-related topics? And please describe your personal issues with the non-profit Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America? You are welcome to bring forth criticisms from Al Jazeera or Pravda or Arab News.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 00:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * AT, AJCongress and CAMERA are advocacy organizations, and they certainly don't have "the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires". That a propaganda work is pushed by other politically-aligned propaganda organizitions does not make it notable. If that was the case, then every piece of propaganda ever created would be worthy of a wikipedia article. And yes I have a specific issue with CAMERA, and I suspect you will agree with me once you read about how they were caught trying to subvert wikipedia a few years ago. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The idea that all Jewish sources aren't reliable because the movie is about Jews is mesmerizing. The above user has not elaborated on how/why the sources are not valid, only to claim that each and every one of them are "advocacy organizations". And that the Israeli newspapers are not valid because they only describe the notability of the film, rather than going in depth about the film. But then an in-depth review from a theater magazine is suddenly a "blog" and an article in a conservative magazine is not valid because it's "conservative." And so on. The arguments are vague and meaningless. The notability of this film is clearly established. Just for fun though another article in a prominent newspaper: http://www.jpost.com/Features/In-Thespotlight/The-Nakba-of-Moroccos-Jews. Btw, as I just posted above, "Judaism" is in fact peer reviewed

So we have: Screened at the UN, screened at the US Congress, covered in the Jerusalem Post, Times of Israel, and Israel National News, reviewed in New York Theatre Review, featured in American Thinker as well as a peer-reviewed journal. So it's quite notable. Drsmoo (talk) 02:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is particularly mesmerizing that you think anyone holds that view. If the coverage in the Jerusalem Post, Times of Israel, and Israel National News was actually detailed and not just a sentence in passing, that would be satisfactory to my mind. As to the other sources, if you are arguing for an exception to WP:RS, you should state your case. None of them qualify on the face of it. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * director:
 * country:
 * year and type:
 * production:
 * production:


 * Delete - NN film done as propaganda. The topic of the film is important in current politics so the film receives indirect press release mention in notable journals as they discuss the broader more important topic. A certain type of political commentator will use any chance to mention the exile of Jews from Arab lands, Anyone can have a screening, does not mean anyone showed up.But film is NN, David project is entirety propaganda, little new here.--Jayrav (talk) 00:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Notability is found through coverage, not politics or popularity. "Propaganda" is a subjective description and not a deletion rationale. Sorry.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 00:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Correct and there has been little coverage. TOI and AT are indirect mentions, Judaism, however, was a good direct mention and coverage.--Jayrav (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep The sources added to the article and those described above meet and exceed the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 05:26, 3 January 2016‎ (UTC)
 * Comment I won't need to point out to the closing administrator -- but shall do so anyway, perhaps for the benefit of others -- that we have a vast category structure for Category:Propaganda films. So whether or not as film is or isn't "propaganda" is entirely immaterial. I see the article is not categorized as such, and if kept, editors would be free to add it to this category tree and adapt the article content to reflect this, if they have reliable sources characterizing it as such. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Good point, and a pertinent example of the problem here. We know it's a propaganda film because it was produced by an organization whose sole purpose is propaganda (e.g. "...propaganda machineries like David Project..."), and whose only other film is characterized by WP:RS as such (e.g. "...produced a propaganda film..."). But because, as discussed ad nauseum above, we have no WP:RS which give any more than a single sentence describing the existence of this film, so we cannot make any suggestion that the film was made for propaganda purposes in the article. Hence if this article remains it will forever be a whitewashed view, an advert if you will. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You do have some options in addition to deletion: if it is produced by a propaganda organization there's at least a case to be made for describing and categorizing this film as such, even if you can't find a reliable source stating "X is a propaganda film about..." And if that's resisted, you can always tag it as  or  and state your case in that regard. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, but is it really acceptable to go down any of those routes without any WP:RS? IMHO, this is precisely the reason why all wikipedia articles need at least one detailed WP:RS underpinning them. This whole deletion debate boils down to whether we are willing to accept a review from an advocacy organization connected to the film's producers as an WP:RS for a propaganda film. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Unless someone is nursing a prejudice (and I am not accusing you of doing so),Jweekly (for instance) has been long considered a reliable source for Jewish topics. 01:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC).


 * Speedy Keep notability has been well established and the nominator continues to push a bias that merely because the source is Jewish it can't be RS, we have seen that at RS/N a few times and it is disgusting and there's one reason why you don't see many Jewish editors editing certain topics. After a certain point you need to take a step back and look at all the sources and see if there is something there, regardless of the topic at hand. That is what WP is about, this article is notable, not for the specific topic, but the notability of the article has been clearly met. Is the Warsaw Jewish Film Festival also not a notable film festival? Sir Joseph (talk) 04:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * keep - after reading the above, I'd assert that between the Jerusalem Post and Jweekly sources above, there is sufficient independent mention of the doc and assertion of its notability for there to be an article. Schmidt above argues it better than I can. I'm confident that good Wikipedia editors could make a good article on this doc - whether or not we can find anyone with enough good faith to produce an unbiased article on this topic is not a valid point in an AfD debate. And parenthetically, for those editors interested in the finer theory of RS, I'd add that propaganda is often in the eye of the beholder, and there are many peer-reviewed journals and scholarly texts (e.g. in economics) that publish what many sensible educated scholars would identify as blatant propaganda. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per Schmidt. Simple WP:IDONTLIKEIT case from single-issue editor on WP:POVPUSHING crusade. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2016 (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.