Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youth Unstoppable


 * 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 no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America1000 11:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Youth Unstoppable

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Article about a documentary film, not properly referenced as passing WP:NFILM. The notability claim here is awards from minor film festivals that aren't prominent enough to clinch "notable because award" -- that's looking for festivals on the Cannes-Berlin-Sundance-Toronto tip, not just any and every small-fry film festival that exists -- and which are referenced entirely to the film festivals' own self-published websites about themselves rather than any evidence of media coverage in third party sources. (The difference between an award that is notable enough to confer notability on its winners and an award that is not notable enough to confer notability on its winners, as always, hinges on whether it's an award that media consider significant enough to cover or not.) And even on a search for other sources, I'm not finding anything that would make a difference: the most substantive coverage I can find is a small one-day blip of "famous person signs on as executive producer of documentary film" when one of the film's executive producers was announced in 2018, which isn't enough to turn the tide all by itself, and I'm otherwise only finding primary sources, student media and glancing namechecks of the film's existence in tangential coverage of other things or people, not sources that actually establish the notability of this film by being independent and reliable and substantive. Bearcat (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - recent significant international coverage, including the first (malformed) CNN reference in the article here, and one earlier this month in Australia. Nfitz (talk) 01:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The CNN hit is a short blurb within a liveblog about a broader event, which means it's not substantive coverage about the film for the purposes of establishing notability — and the Australian hit is a Q& A interview in which the filmmaker is talking about her own work in the first person, which means that one isn't independent of the film for the purposes of establishing notability. So no, that's not enough. Bearcat (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Nfitz (talk) 04:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You can disagree all you like, that doesn't change the fact that Wikipedia has an established consensus that liveblogs and Q&A interviews aren't GNG-making sources in and of themselves for a topic that doesn't have anything better. Bearcat (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The CNN link is not a "short blurb", but a 10-paragraph standalone story, presented with other stories. It's no more a live-blog than the Globe & Mail is a live-blog. The Australian article does include a Q&A interview, but there's an 8-paragraph article BEFORE the interview, which in itself is good enough for GNG. Adding an interview onto it, doesn't undo it! There's also no shortage of what I'd actually call blurbs from renowned sources around the world, such as Variety, Al Jazeera, Toronto Star, Avanti and Marie Claire; while they don't meet GNG, does dismiss the argument that this is just some small-fry local film. Nfitz (talk) 23:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * One post in a multipost thread that's formatted exactly the same way CNN routinely formats its event liveblogs is not a "standalone story" — standalone stories stand alone as the core topic of the page, and do not have other unrelated stories about other unrelated things threaded before and after them under a single common article title. Every interview with anybody in a media outlet always includes a bit of prefatory content to contextualize who the person is and why they're being interviewed, so the existence of prefatory content does not eliminate the problems with using interviews as sourcing — no interview would ever actually be subject to our rules about interviews at all if that were how it worked, because no interview ever fails to have an explanatory paragraph or two at the top. And since blurbs don't help to build notability at all (just like interviews, they're fine for verification of stray facts after GNG has already been passed, but count for nothing toward the initial matter of whether GNG has been passed in the first place), none of those other links are helping at all.
 * And I didn't say the film was "small-fry and local", either — I said that the film festivals whose awards are being proffered here as the film's notability claim are small-fry and local festivals. NFILM #3 does not just indiscriminately extend an automatic notability freebie to every film that wins just any award at just any film festival that exists — it only considers awards from internationally prominent major film festivals, such as Cannes, Berlin, TIFF or Sundance, which can be referenced to media coverage that reports that film festival's awards as news. So "small-fry" and "local" were and are descriptions of the festivals, not of the film, because the international prominence and media profile of the festivals is germane to whether their awards count as notability claims or not. Bearcat (talk) 13:04, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Nfitz (talk) 03:10, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Good for you, want a cookie? That doesn't make me any less correct about how notability works for films, or how interviews and blurbs work vis-à-vis GNG. Bearcat (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Just because someone disagrees with you about GNG works regarding interview and what a "blurb" is (this isn't) doesn't mean you are allowed to belittle them. Though generally such uncivil behaviour typically means that the person resorting to it, has little factual to go to. Nfitz (talk) 22:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  11:18, 10 December 2021 (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.