Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The World According to Monsanto


 * 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. (non-admin closure) — ☮ JAaron95  Talk  14:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The World According to Monsanto

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I think this fails WP:NFILM. I cannot find independent critical reviews outside of the alternative health WP:FRINGE groups. The article simply cites promotional sites and the film itself as a kind of soaprack. jps (talk) 12:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, although article is badly sourced and written at present, there seem to be just enough RS to establish notability.Pincrete (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The French name gives other reviews, not being fluent in French, I am unable to assess their worth.Pincrete (talk) 16:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC) … nb corrected links given as 'Alts', 'original' below. Pincrete (talk) 09:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. The sources are not independent (recycling the promoter's blurb) or are trivial (listings only). I see no evidence of analytical coverage, nothing supporting anything much beyond its bare existence. Guy (Help!) 15:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to Marie-Monique Robin. The film seems to be very poorly covered in the (English language) media, and there is little evidence of notability to be found. The French media isn't quite as clear, there's quite a few WP:FRINGE media sources with some mentions, but I can't find much to suggest that it has received substantial coverage from reliable non-fringe sources. Based on that, it seems to clearly fail WP:NFILM. I'm not sure if the film should be summarized briefly on Marie-Monique Robin's page or just listed there somewhere, but it definitely doesn't justify a standalone article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garzfoth (talk • contribs) 23:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. that search is for the English title, but once on that page I pasted the French title into the search field and looked at the first half-dozen results. Most were just mentions in news pieces about other projects of Marie-Monique Robin’s, by way of introducing her as best-known-for. (I suppose that’s evidence of notability in the vernacular sense, if not in WP’s.) One was a brief go-see-it from an environmentalist blogger who calls Robin a friend. But the sixth hit was a fairly substantial critique from the Association Française pour l’Information Scientifique, with an introduction that says more or less that they hadn’t planned on watching the film, but having seen it on national TV felt obligated to confront the pseudoscience therein on a few points. Although that’s not exactly encouraging, having found one solid review so quickly I expect that with a little effort more coverage might be found.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  02:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per Guy and nom. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 03:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Pincrete (talk) 10:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Alts
 * Original:
 * Filmaker:
 * Brazil:
 * Germany:
 * Finland:
 * Hungary:
 * Sweden:
 * Finland (Swedish title):
 * ALt English:


 * Keep per meeting WP:NF through enough evidence being offered that this film with its wide international release has enough coverage in multiple non-English languages (needing translation) to meet WP:GNG. All that is needed is to fix it up... not delete it.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 09:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - the book has been multiply reviewed by sources such as Les Inrockuptibles, and the film has been reviewed by a scientific agency and shown before a meeting of the National Assembly. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 04:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep:: the article references coverage in Le Monde and Le Figaro, both of which are unimpeachable WP:RS and establish notability for this film. Vrac (talk) 11:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. While I agree that the sourcing was completely primary at the time of the original nomination, it's been improved with much better references to solid, independent reliable sources like Le Monde, Le Figaro and the Toronto Star. Bearcat (talk) 19:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Bearcat and Vrac. Sourcing has been improved to the point where it now passes WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:59, 21 August 2015 (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.