Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gettysburg Address (film)


 * 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 delete. Note: Delete and merge is not possible for reasons of attribution.  Sandstein  12:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

The Gettysburg Address (film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:NFF Promo page for an unreleased student film. No sign of release impending, no distributor connected, no production company that has ever released a film. Facebook page that IMDb lists as the film's official website has not been updated in over four years, IMDb itself has not been updated in over two. A soundtrack was released four years ago (to little attention - Amazon has one review), and also a book of essays on the address that was supposed to be a tie-in. Once one gets beyond the 2013 "look, a father and son are making a movie" piece in the Globe, sources are weak (there's a University of New Hampshire article, as the student involved is one of their students, and similar "local boy" coverage from the hometown paper.) Nothing else other than passing mentions found via WP:BEFORE Nat Gertler (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Nat Gertler (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep for now, see if this AfD shakes their tree a bit and gets an answer about why the film isn't being released. From the text and sources the film has major stars in voice-over roles, has released a soundtrack, and includes rare access from institutions holding documents about the topic. An interesting situation, and could be considered notable as a major but completed unreleased artwork. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:34, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a curious assumption that a student documentary without a distributor or an experienced production company would be released unless there's a reason for it not to be. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I left a note at the main editor's talk page asking them (if they are related to the film) the why's of non-release, and suggesting youtube as a possible route. Truly odd that the creators of the film were able to get all of those major and minor stars to participate in the documentary, create a soundtrack, and then leave it unreleased. I will change my "Keep" if more isn't forthcoming, or if the mystery isn't cleared up in a few days. Who doesn't like a good mystery! Randy Kryn (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * How about, instead of deleting, we change the article's name to The Gettysburg Address (soundtrack) by moving the soundtrack section to the top as the main topic of the page and give it a good edit. We can then tell the interesting story of the "where-is-it?" documentary as a good-sized section of the soundtrack page. And have one of the coolest names on the encyclopedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * In what way does the soundtrack meet the WP:NALBUMS criteria? At the moment, we have it sourced to a sales page and to a review that's a self-published source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You mean one five-star customer rating at Amazon doesn't clear the notability bar? It's a start. Although self-published, Soundtrack Geek seems to be used as a source quite a bit on Wikipedia, as is reviewer Jørn Tillnes. The bar is still raised higher than that unless Tillness is established as a reviewer in other sources. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * And even if you were to clear that, what you have is a single three-paragraph review, not enough to meet notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I am singularly unimpressed by the level of WP:PAG based discussion above.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:39, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The Boston Globe article, the Cornell University article, and the other cites on the page seem to be enough to show notability, verifiability, and to keep the page around. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:00, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The Cornell University piece is not a third-party source, it's six sentences talking about their involvement in the making of this supposed film. Look at it this way: What impact does the film's existence have? What import does it have? Since the film does not exist, and it has not built anyone's career, the answer is clearly none. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:11, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The film obviously either exists in production, and is covered in the reliable sources (Boston Globe, the Cornell article, and the other mentions), and what has come from it so far is an an album (which exists, sourced) and a book published by Oxford University Press (sourced), both covered in the article. Either the album or the book could be the stand-alone subject of the page, which combines all of the related topics. What adds to this film's notability are the quality of the voice actors involved as well as the seemingly unprecedented access to papers, manuscripts, and other historical remnants of the Gettysburg Address. With the Boston Globe and Cornell cites, and the amount of detail present, the page covers a unique and important subject. I personally would like to see the film, and await its eventual public release. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no sign that either the book or the soundtrack is of sufficient notability to support their own articles. We do not have articles for every book or every CD that exists.... and that goes moreso for student films that look like they will never be released. That you would like to see such a film were it to exist is irrelevant. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The point is that the book has been published and is sourced on the page, the album has been made and distributed and is sourced on the page, and the film seems to have been created with the direct assistance of many cultural institutions and many big-name actors and is sourced on the page. The Gettysburg Address is notable, the academic book about the address is notable, the musical presentation of the era seems exhaustive of its topic, and the page is a complete package about the project. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:28, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * At this point, the entire section on the book is sourced to Amazon sales pages for it. If you want to make a claim that the book is notable, you'll have to find a better source than that. The soundtrack is sourced to Amazon sales page and a three-word quote from a self-published blog post. These are not signs of notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:40, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The book section draws repeatedly on the fact that this book is associated with the film, but I see no evidence on the sole source (the Amazon page) that this is the case. Yes, it is edited by the same person who made the film, but scholars often publish related works that aren't directly linked, and linkage should not be assumed simply from chronology. The book art is different from the film art (atypical when there is direct linkage) and the only place the Amazon entry mentions the film is in one customer review, where it says the compiler's work on the film 'inspired' the book, which is not the same as it being "a companion book".  Customer reviews are not reliable sources anyhow, so we have absolutely zero reliable evidence of linkage. That same review is the only place that James McPherson is named anywhere on that Amazon page, and only to say that the editor consulted with McPherson (among a long list of consulting scholars). The quote from McPherson praising the book appears nowhere (maybe the page was different in 2017). Agricolae (talk) 18:41, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Nat Gertler (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Nat Gertler (talk) 15:51, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete unreleased film that violates Crystal ball, and an unremarkable album that has barley made a ripple.Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * A ripple is all that's needed for notability, especially as this album has been praised for its coverage of American Civil War music. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Praised as such by some guy on his own web site. That is worth the square root Sweet Fanny Adams. Simple existence does not equate with notability, no matter how many stars an Amazon customer or a self-published blog give it. We only have evidence that two people have ever listed to this soundtrack. Agricolae (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The "guy on his own website" is a notable reviewer cited often on Wikipedia. The soundtrack exists, as does the book which includes articles by many noted American Civil War scholars, and the film seems to have included many actors and research institutions. The combined book, album, and story of the film's creation make this a keepable article in terms of verifiability. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * A lot of web sites are cited on Wikipedia that shouldn't be, so I find 'other pages cite his blog' unpersuasive. Except for certain very-specific exceptions, self-published material is not WP:RS.  That the soundtrack exists is not being questioned.  That doesn't make it notable, or even necessarily noteworthy.  A book exists, but the cited source does not link it in any way to the film, except in a customer review, which isn't a reliable source.  A film does not become notable simply by virtue of its cast.  Verifiability, mere existence, of three components does not achieve notability, like it was some product of alchemy, where a combination of the mundane produces gold. Agricolae (talk) 18:49, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Nat Gertler (talk) 15:58, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * At the WikiProject Military history page as well. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per Slatersteven, plus mere existence is insufficient for notability, even if it combines three related items that merely exist. Agricolae (talk) 18:52, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete No refs other than that it exists. Basically an advertisement. Article didn't make it 90 days before it was challenged, and has been ever since. Sammy D III (talk) 04:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete film, but merge briefly. Gettysburg Address itself is exceptionally notable.  Gettysburg Address might be split with a new heading Centennaries, covering President Kennedy's speech and the 150 year events.  The book, which is already mentioned, is clearly a notable aspect of that; the film soundtrack and unreleased film are probably less significant, but could be mentioned, with a full archival reference for where the film is deposited.  I note that most of the film actors have articles, but the film itself almost sounds like a NN student project.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:06, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This book is only mentioned on the speech's page as a reference; there was another book, Gettysburg Responses, which is mentioned in the body of the text. If this book is particularly notable among the dozens of books which have been published on the address, the notability would have to be shown. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:54, 26 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.