Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sarkeesian Effect


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 00:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The Sarkeesian Effect

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article about film in production; no indication of notability. Trivialist (talk) 01:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  01:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to Anita Sarkeesian. At this point in time there really is very little about this documentary other than there are plans to make it and the fundraising efforts are receiving some controversy. The big problem here is that at this point in time the controversy is relatively small in comparison to other stuff (Gamergate, Tropes vs. Women in Video Games as a whole) and this specific documentary has not yet received enough coverage to where it'd merit a mention outside of Sarkeesian's article. If this gets fully off the ground and gets made, it's likely that it will gain that necessary coverage but right now it's just simply WP:TOOSOON for an article. It is getting some notice from a few media outlets due to its association with Sarkeesian and Gamergate, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by being associated with either the woman or the controversy. Right now the coverage is so insanely light that there's no true reason for an independent article at this point in time. I'd say redirect and merge to Sarkeesian due to the film's name, as she'd be the person they'd most likely associate with the film and because her article is a lot smaller than the Gamergate article, although that last bit is sort of an aside. I do think that we should leave the article's history intact so we can redirect if/when the coverage becomes available. Right now, it's all focusing on one thing: people trying to shut down the crowdfunding campaign and not really in a fashion that'd truly show a depth of coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Changing vote to delete. Upon further thought, I don't entirely think that this is really worth a redirect and merge. I'm trying to clean it up a little and I'm not finding much of anything out there about this. I hadn't found much to begin with, but the more I think about it the more this just doesn't seem like it's worth mentioning anywhere at this point in time. I don't have any issue with anyone wanting to userfy this, but offhand I'm really not seeing enough to where this is really notable enough for even a mention at this point in time. This isn't exactly getting covered in anything other than self-published sources, WP:PRIMARY sources, and places that would likely be considered unusable by much of WP:RS/N. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   07:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Not even an actual film at this time, just a single-purpose account creating an article on a kickstarter-like project. Minor, blog-ish coverage, nothing more. Tarc (talk) 12:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per being way Too Soon. This "in development" article is premature. Allow undeletion or recreation when filming begins and onlyif it gets coverage to meet WP:NF.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 15:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete with no prejudice against re-creation if the subject actually gains notability once production/release rolls around. No significant coverage outside of a few blog posts.  G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete for this likely vaporware film's lack of notability. Sixthhokage1 (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep there is supposed to be an IMDB page and teaser clips this week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefocusingblur (talk • contribs) 21:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)  — Thefocusingblur (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Per Notability (films), an IMDb page does not by itself establish the film's notability. Trivialist (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Filming underway: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPY7OqGQONQ&feature=youtu.be — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefocusingblur (talk • contribs) 05:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is that IMDb is just a database entry, which cannot show notability. There are a lot of films on IMDb that fail notability guidelines quite solidly and I should know- I'm frequently finding movies on there that'd I'd love to add but they were released to little to no fanfare. As far as filming goes, that doesn't give notability to the film by film footage existing. What that point of WP:NFF means is that filming has begun and there is substantial coverage in independent and reliable sources to warrant there being a page before the film releases. Right now that coverage just doesn't exist to where Wikipedia would consider this film to be notable per the guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   10:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The project does earn close to $10.000 a month. That stands out notably from most patreon projects. I think that makes it notable enough even before the documentary is published.PizzaMan (♨♨) 17:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It would be wise to review WP:N and WP:NFILM, so you will be aware of the notability criteria for this project, and for films specifically. "The Project earns X dollars per month" is not one of them. Tarc (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've still been looking for coverage for this and I found a Reddit thread that suggests that the film's creators have been asking people to come on here and help rescue the article.(Much, much love to User:wwwwolf for explaining notability policy in the same thread.) I'd like to stress that this article can only be salvaged if you can provide coverage in reliable and independent sources, which do not seem to be available at this point in time. Just coming on here and asking for it to be kept based on the Patreon project doing well or because it has an IMDb page isn't really going to do anything because it doesn't fall under the notability rationales at WP:NFF, as it all boils down to coverage. Having a successful crowdsourcing campaign can help gain coverage, but it's not a guarantee. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   14:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. No reliable sources to speak for this not-even-existent film, and no other claim to notability per WP:NOTFILM. An obvious attempt to use Wikipedia as free advertising for a non-notable topic by a single-purpose account. An admin should WP:SPEEDY it under WP:G11; it's unambiguous promotion with no hope of being rewritten.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well... unless provably a blatant hoax or a BLP violation, films are generally not speediable. Even if negatively, the film's planned production is getting some limited coverage which supports the article's content. And were it to never be made, we could still look to WP:NFF (paragraph 3) to see if its failure was notable... so asserting it has "no hope of being rewritten" is not precisely accurate.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 16:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Articles are candidates for WP:G11 if they're "unambiguously promotional", like this is, and they could not be rewritten with reliable sources. Despite the valiant efforts of Tokyogirl and G S Palmer to rewrite it, the three blog sources here aren't nearly enough to base an article on, or event o justify a mention in another article.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, for films "unambiguous promotion" would be something like saying "this is gonna be the best film ever" or "this film is going to win major awards" or "send us your money so we can make the film". And as Tokyogirl and G S Palmer at least tried, they deserve our thanks and appreciation. Pretty much every article here on Wikipedia "promotes" its topic in some manner by sharing sourced information of which our readers might otherwise be unaware, and various aspects of poorly written articles become a matter of editorial attention to address tone, content, format, and style. The article will doubtless be deleted but does not need the added stigma of a speedy. If the film is ever made and a properly-sourced neutral article is eventually reintroduced, I'll chuckle at the irony of "no hope of being rewritten".... but I do not see it happening anytime soon, specially with the current sourcing. Be well.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 03:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Per WP:TOOSOON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * More press coverage: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-04/sparrow-gamergate-when-outsiders-become-the-oppressors/5719584 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefocusingblur (talk • contribs) 18:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * . Thanks, but read WP:NFF. The one paragraph describing Sarkeesian's activism and the 30 minute video clip where she complains of the objectification of women in video games, do not speak toward this planned film in any way. ANd the pitch trailer speaking about the proposed film does not impart notability. Sorry.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 20:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - indeed WP:TOOSOON. Fails WP:NF. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 03:29, 26 October 2014 (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.