Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Torchbearer (documentary)

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 redirect to Steve Bannon#Filmography. Content can be merged from page history.

This was close to being a no consensus, but in the end it seems like the general agreement is that the sourcing isn't independent enough from Bannon for its own article. ansh 666 07:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Torchbearer (documentary)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is little more than a listing for a utterly non-notable propaganda film., whipped up by an editor who's stated that he's doing it for promotion "The best part is if you get an article to 1500 chars you can get the article advertised on the Main page and in front of 17 million eyeballs" --Calton | Talk 11:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC) Calton | Talk 11:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AFDs of articles created by the same editor

--Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:44, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I tried in earnest to improve the article, but the coverage is very shallow and mostly occurred during promotion of the film at Cannes. The article is unlikely to be expanded beyond a single short paragraph. Fails WP:NFO. Wikipedia is not a platform for promoting the propaganda of the far-right/alt-right.- Mr X 🖋 11:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You might also be interested that I had nominated his other article The Hope and the Change for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hope and the Change for the discussion. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The documentary has received significant coverage, therefore should qualify under WP:NFILM. There is nothing to suggest that this is promotion (the nom appears to misunderstand WP:PROMOTION), also if an article can be nominated for DYK, it does not mean that it will appear there. Hzh (talk) 11:53, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the nom appears to misunderstand WP:PROMOTION Since I made no reference whatsoever to WP:PROMOTION, it's kind of hard to see how I "misunderstand it". But looking at it now, I see applies completely, gaslighting by you and Lionelt notwithstanding: Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion: Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. Lionelt's talk of the article getting 17 million eyeballs obviously has nothing to do with promoting Wikipedia in general -- not unless he's claiming that the existence of this article will cause a spike of 17 million readers rushing to read it. --Calton | Talk 14:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hzh: Could you point out some examples of significant coverage? I couldn't find much of anything.- Mr X 🖋 16:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are already some given in the article e.g. [1], there are sources that talk about the film, most often discussed in relation to Steve Bannon - [2][3][4][5], not to mention those from Christian sites [6][7][8]. Even those that just give passing mention to the film show that it has significance - [9][10]. Hzh (talk) 19:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 13:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the article clearly demonstrates significant coverage in reliable sources. Passes WP:GNG. This article is a stub meaning it is a prime candidate for expansion. Agree with other editors, nominator appears to have a misunderstanding of WP:PROMOTION. Wikipedia has a critical new editor retention problem. Encouraging new editors to participate in DYK is a strategy of engagement--not promotion. I'm trying to assume good faith, but the ad hominem comments by nominator display a certain personal animus. – Lionel^(talk) 19:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well you wording seem to imply that "he best part is if you get an article to 1500 chars you can get the article advertised on the Main page and in front of 17 million eyeballs" [bold added for emphasis]--Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 19:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The raison d'être for DYK is promotion. Whether you call it showcasing, highlighting or even advertising, it's just semanics. From WP:DYKAIM: DYK aims to achieve the following five goals:

1. To showcase new and improved content...

2. To highlight the variety of information...

4. ... contributing to editor retention

Bolding from original except #4. I repeat: there is a basic misunderstanding or WP:PROMOTION. – Lionel^(talk) 23:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I understand it quite well, thank you. Your talk of this article getting 17 million eyeballs obviously has nothing to do with promoting Wikipedia as a whole -- not unless you're claiming that the existence of this article will cause a spike of 17 million readers rushing to read it.

It's not that you're a propagandist, it's that you're not a terribly subtle one. --Calton | Talk 14:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Steve Bannon. The sources are reporting Steve Bannon and Phil Robertson rather than talking at any length about the film. Here's the Independent UK newspaper talking about how Bannon used the film as part of his campaign to make a ton of money and to fool a bunch of Americans into voting for Trump. Binksternet (talk) 22:57, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete Not sure this is major enough (or there is enough) for a merge.Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Steve Bannon-I trawled through quite many sources but not one of them devotes anything significant to the film.Not much to merge, either.∯WBG^converse 13:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge as suggested. Therei s insufficient content and significance for a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge as suggested above. Not independently notable, but I see no harm in a redirect. Neutrality^talk 00:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect to Steven Bannon.~~ Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NF. The Hollywood Reporter is the best source cited by the article, but its coverage isn't significant. The other sources just offer passing mentions. Here's my analysis of Hzh's sources:
1. The Hollywood Reporter (different source than cited in article): Insignificant coverage of film itself
2. Sight & Sound: OK. Author is "Celluloid Liberation Front," which is a bit questionable
3. NewsOK (Associated Press): Passing mentions
4. NPR: Insignificant coverage of the film itself
5. Keith Koffler: ~~Passing mention.~~ ~~OK.~~ Not a reliable source. The author Keith Koffler operates a site called "White House Dossier," which Koffler describes as an attempt to "try to do some of the traditional accountability that journalism stands for." His authored articles on Google News are primarily opinion pieces. There are 2 books on Amazon with his name on it: the first one is The Obama Scandals: The 22 Worst Outrages of the Obama Administration, and the second one is Bannon: Always the Rebel (this book). It doesn't look like this book would be any more reliable than Breitbart News.
6. Christian Today: Insignificant coverage. Not a reliable source. Footer copyright is 2017.
7. The Christian Times: Not a reliable source. Footer copyright is 2016.
8. CNSNews.com: Not a reliable source. The parent organization, Media Research Center, states that their mission is to "expose and neutralize the propaganda arm of the Left."
9. The Independent: Passing mention
10. The Washington Post: Passing mentions

— Newslinger talk 20:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heavens! The book actually gives quite a lengthy passage of many paragraphs on the film. I wonder what you consider to be not passing mention. Significant coverage does not require the subject to be the main topic of any source. Hzh (talk) 22:01, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep. Sorry, I didn't properly click through from the Google Books previews. 2 sources are adequate to pass WP:GNG.~~ — Newslinger talk 23:01, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that the book just proves it is part of Bannons story, it does not establish independent notability.Slatersteven (talk) 07:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect to Steve Bannon.~~ Amended evaluation above. — Newslinger talk 07:56, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changed !vote. See below. — Newslinger talk 15:11, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article is well-sourced and meets WP:NFILM. There's nothing wrong with encouraging others to improve an article so it can be posted on the main page -- not only do several uninvolved editors look over those nominations before they're approved, but getting an article on the main page is sort of the point of improving articles, as it is the community recognizing the work put into improving it. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:27, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've been into this POV pushing, over here too? I assumed fringe-science was your favorite venue but I stand corrected.∯WBG^converse 10:56, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That comment is messed up on multiple fronts, and shows how little you actually know about me. Rather than engaging in WP:UNCIVIL and WP:PERSONAL attacks, you should respond to the actual substance of my !vote. Your comment is especially ridiculous considering that the vast majority of my edits have nothing to do with the topics you mentioned. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, WP:NPA, specifically, states "comment on content, not on the contributor." The user's comment above ignores the content and falsely attacks the contributor. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:51, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep enough independent coverage to establish WP:GNG. Redirect is not going to be helpful. Orientls (talk) 13:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Newslinger's analysis.∯WBG^converse 10:56, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:NFILM. User:Newslinger is commended for the analysis of the references. Ifnord (talk) 13:05, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just added NYT, WaPo, Breitbart, and Politico. There is more, but this ought to do it. Significant coverage received, so broadly passes WP:NFILM. --1l2l3k (talk) 14:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Regarding the 4 newly added sources:
- Politico Magazine: OK
- The Washington Post: Passing mentions
- Breitbart: Not a reliable or independent source
- The New York Times: Passing mention

In my opinion, the coverage in Politico Magazine and Sight & Sound is enough to satisfy WP:GNG. These 2 articles each cover multiple films by Bannon, but they offer enough detail on this particular release to meet WP:NFSOURCES even though a substantial portion of the analysis is directed toward all of the films as a set. WP:SIGCOV states that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." — Newslinger talk 15:11, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bannon's article. I see a lot of coverage of Bannon's movies, typically covered together, and coverage of Bannon and Robertson themselves, but I don't see a lot of in-depth coverage specifically about this film apart from the general subject of Bannon's movies. I don't think it needs to be deleted, as the sources about Bannon's movies are sufficient to include in his article. Happy to reconsider pending sources specifically about this film rather than about Bannon's films collectively (and aside from passing mentions). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Steve_Bannon#Filmography. Only notable due to its affiliation to Bannon. One or two sentences could be added from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Torchbearer (documentary)

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.