Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kin Fables (2nd nomination)

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:32, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kin Fables

[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)

Relist following a no-consensus closure, because the original discussion ended as a debate exclusively between me as nominator and the person who approved it at AFC, with virtually nobody else weighing in at all one way or the other.
The problem here remains that this doesn't have a strong claim to passing WP:NFILM (it won craft awards at minor film festivals, not major awards for the purposes of NFILM #3), and the sourcing isn't solid enough to get it over WP:GNG in lieu: the referencing is 8/9 to primary sources, university student media and Q&A interviews in which the filmmakers are speaking about themselves, and even the interviews are entirely on non-notable blogs with the exception of one from the local morning show of a television station in their own hometown. The only source here that actually gets them off the starting blocks is #8, the Montreal Gazette -- but that's still their hometown newspaper, not evidence of expanding coverage, and even if you dismiss that problem it still takes more than just one GNG-worthy source for a topic to pass GNG.
The other keep rationale given in the first discussion was that this isn't just a film, but a multimedia project with musical and graphic novel components too -- but nothing stated in the article passes WP:AUTHOR or WP:NMUSIC either, so that's still not a notability freebie that would exempt it from having to have much more reliable source coverage than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no prejudice to a future nomination does not imply 24 hours after the end of a three week listing. I haven't changed my mind about the long sections of prose in the articles that are being unfairly dismissed as just Q&A so this comment still applies: clearly passes WP:GNG with a substantial piece in the Montreal Gazette which is most certainly not a local hometown newspaper but a major regional source and a national reliable source. Reference one has three paragraphs of prose before the interview, which is admissable as coverage as articles including interviews are not summarily dismissed on that basis if they have valid extra content apart from the interview. Reference four from The Concordian has seven paragraphs in prose about the project before and mixed in with the interview and is clearly substantial coverage, university newspapers are generally reliable sources especially as they do not have the commercial pressure applied to them. Reference nine has six paragraphs of prose directly about the project before the interview section and is clearly substantial coverage. The Montreal Gazette piece documents the two main awards that the films have won so the awards are being reported on in reliable sources and are therefore notable awards according to the nominators rationale. Also it is not just a three film project it also included an album and written work, and I don't see anything advert like in the tone. The article was more or less abandoned till I published it and the project lost all momentum after the premature death of one of the brothers who created the project so there has been no publicity drive. In conclusion the article passes WP:GNG and deserves to be included, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I already explained the first time, and was correct about, the question of whether coverage is "local" or "national" for the purposes of getting a person over WP:GNG is not a question of the publication's distribution range, it is a question of the physical distance between the publication's office and the article topic's house. Even The New York Times regularly covers people in contexts of purely local interest that don't make those people nationally notable just because they got a piece of local-interest coverage in The New York Times — we look at the context of what the publication is covering the person for, and the publication's distribution range does not automatically make them more special than they would be if they lived in a smaller city, but otherwise got the exact same article written about them in the exact same context in that smaller city's less famous local newspaper instead.

Student newspapers, similarly, are not notability-making sources on the grounds that they "do not have the commercial pressure applied to them"; they are non-notability-making sources on the grounds that they do not serve a general interest audience. If student newspapers could singlehandedly make people notable, we would have to keep an article about everybody who was ever president of a campus religious or political club. So a student newspaper can be used as supplementary verification of stray facts after notability has already been covered off by stronger sources, but are not GNG builders in and of themselves.

Q&A interviews can also be used as supplementary referencing for stray facts after notability has already been covered off by stronger sources, but do not count toward the initial matter of making a person notable if they are the best sources on offer. You've also failed to address my point that almost all of the Q&A interviews here are from blogs, and the only one that is actually from a real established media outlet is from a local television station in, again, the subjects' home town.

My nomination statement addressed the reason why "this also included an album and written work" is not a notability claim: nothing stated in the article gets the project over WP:AUTHOR or WP:NMUSIC either. And the question of whether a film award is notable enough to get it over WP:NFILM, again, is not just a question of "any award that leads the subject's local hometown paper to write a human interest piece about them because of it" — it is a question of awards that consistently generate coverage in a broad range of sources not limited to the subject's own hometown: the Oscars, the Canadian Screen Awards, the BAFTAs, and the top tier of internationally famous film festivals (TIFF, Berlin, Cannes, Sundance). It does not automatically cover off just every minor film festival that gives out any awards at all.

In other words, all you've done here is repeat the exact same keep rationale as the first time, while completely failing to respond to anything I said about why it wasn't a solid one. Bearcat (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment looking at the references The Montreal Gazette, Montreal Morning Television are regional media not local, Beautiful Bizarre Magazine is a quarterly arts publication in print as well as online with a world circulation of two million, The Concordian is a university newspaper, My Modern Met has a professional staff shown here, Earmilk does not seem to be a blog, MyMysticSons is not much good as it seems to be a pr company but overall there are enough reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Also a number of the articles have lengthy prose sections as well as interviews including the writer's reviews of the film so they are in part secondary sources and GNG is clear that excerpts such as six paragraphs in one of these cases are acceptable and the entire article does not have to qualify, in fact the topic of the article can be about something else, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I already pointed out above several times, the question of whether coverage is "local" or "regional" or "national", for the purposes of getting a topic over GNG in lieu of having to pass an SNG, is not a question of the publication's distribution range. If a person lives in Montreal, then coverage coming from Montreal is local coverage regardless of whether the outlet has wider distribution or not. A person who owns a restaurant in the Plateau is not instantly getting over GNG just because a food critic reviewed him in the Gazette, for example — the context of what it's covering the restaurateur for is still of local, not nationalized interest, so the fact that the Gazette has a wider than just local readership does not render that food review into "more than local" coverage for the purposes of GNG. The question of whether coverage is "local" or "national", for the purposes of getting a topic over GNG, does not attach to where the paper gets read — it attaches to the context of what the paper is covering the person for.

And university newspapers do not help get a topic over GNG — if they haven't already gotten over GNG on much stronger sources before the university newspaper even comes up, then the university newspaper does not help. As I already stated, if university newspapers counted toward GNG, we would have to keep an article about everybody who was ever president of a student club.

And the difference between a blog and a reliable source media outlet hinges on significantly more than just whether it has named staff or not. The problem with the Earmilk source is that it's a short and unsubstantive blurb, and has nothing to do with whether Earmilk is a blog or not. And on and so forth. Bearcat (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:30, 21 March 2019 (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.