Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Other Side of AIDS

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. The work on this article since nomination appears to have been enough to save it for now, however I would encourage continued work on this article to prevent a re-nomination in later months. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Other Side of AIDS

edit
The Other Side of AIDS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Fails notability criteria for films. Contested WP:PROD. No sources cited beyond IMDB, which does not contribute to notability. Without independent, reliable sources, will end up as a WP:COATRACK for AIDS denialism. MastCell Talk 05:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why would anyone have a neutral vote, delete vote, or a weak keep vote when it won an award. Winning a notable award is automatic notability. Schuym1 (talk) 19:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, WP:COATRACK is an essay and essays should not be used in deletion discussions. Schuym1 (talk) 19:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "two review thing" is a Wikipedia policy that helps ensure that low-quality, self-made videos are not mistaken for notable films. Schuym1 is welcome to an opinion, but I doubt that the notability criteria have changed today. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 01:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it has, it has two reviews now and coverage in reliable sources. This AFD discussion is bull shit. Schuym1 (talk) 01:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And what do you mean by Youtube? This isn't about a damn Youtube video! Schuym1 (talk) 01:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You guys don't even understand what is considered notable. Schuym1 (talk) 01:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it won a notable award! Schuym1 (talk) 01:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It passes everything in WP:Notability for crying out loud! Schuym1 (talk) 01:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you guys even bothered to read WP:Notability? Schuym1 (talk) 01:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You need to relax. No one here is on a huge crusade to remove this article from Wikipedia; there simply are editors that believe that this article is not in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and thus does not belong here. On the flip side, there are people (like yourself) that believe that it should be included, and thus we have civil arguments. The presence of arguments does not mean the presence of vindictiveness on the part of anyone here. Now, have a cup of tea and relax. sephiroth bcr (converse) 20:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And lest we continue to forget.... and with respects, I am going to chime in here... the WP:NF guideine states

The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist:
1. The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.
2. The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:
3. Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.
4. The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.[3]
5. The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.
6. The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.
7. The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.[4]
8. The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.[5]
9. The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.

I wish to stress that this guideline states "following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist". The guideline DOES NOT state that these attributes must exist to be notable, only that IF they do, then reliable sources are liley to be found... as an encouragement for editors to be diligent in theeir searches. It is an error to read that section as a mandate or limitation. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • And further, it does not state we must discount "minor"' reviews. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update Have just added reviews from 2002 until 2008. Some are extensive. Some are less so. All address continued notability. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q.
  • Comment I will not involve myself in an edit war. However, I request the closing Admin take a very close look at THIS DIFF to see that the entire swathe of reviews I had added covering a span from 2002 to 2008 wer batch removed. They were there. Notability had been established. Now they are gone. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Not notable per nom and Keepcalmandcarryon. The article fails WP:RS. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 14:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uh are you saying Variety and the Seattle Times aren't reliable sources? Your comment doesn't seem to make sense, given the evidence of reliable sources presented. Keepcalmandcarryon's comment also incorrectly claims a 5 paragraph 460 word review is just "3 paragraphs". --Rividian (talk) 18:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe, to refocus, we can list the sources that are out there and whose quality could conceivably support a neutral, encyclopedic article. I see the review in Variety. The Seattle Times article (actually a reprint of a Los Angeles Times article) is a news report about Christine Maggiore, the director's husband, and the death of their child from untreated AIDS. That issue is covered in depth at Christine Maggiore and should not be reduplicated here; the film is mentioned only very briefly, in one sentence IIRC, as evidence of the couple's beliefs about AIDS. Finally, there's the AFI - my understanding is that the film did not receive any award there, but did receive "special mention" ([2]). I'm not sure how much weight to assign that factoid. MastCell Talk 18:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well admittedly one full-length review in a RS is rather thin. What's wrong with filmcritic and Hollywood Reporter, though? I'm not arguing, just asking (sorry if this was covered in the above back-and-forth, but I stopped reading after the personal attacks started flying). At any rate, like I said, if multiple reviews from RSes can't be found, I'd be fine with a redirect. I just get annoyed when people come in and claim there aren't any RSes of any sort, when there obviously are. --Rividian (talk) 18:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks for the correction, Rividian. I miscounted the paragraphs in the filmcritic review (not that my argument was very good anyway, unless there's a clear boundary for "full length"). More saliently, filmcritic.com is the personal website of someone named Christopher Null; search for it on Wikipedia, and you will be directed to Null's bio. The Hollywood Reporter is a reliable source, I think, on par with Variety as a long-time industry paper. But the review in HR is also a short capsule, not a full review, as I think you might agree despite my inability to count! As industry mags, HR and Variety will have capsules on practically everything, notable for Wikipedia or not. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — notable by a landslide. Two reviews, a film award, and big controversy. Meets the WP:GNG. sephiroth bcr (converse) 20:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Christine Maggiore. Debated on this quite a bit, but I feel this film is not quite notable. Only two reviews, and while good reviews, being just 2 doesn't speak to much notability on their own. The award is a "special jury award" rather than a regular award, with no explanation that I can find as to why it was given. The main controversy seems to be more about Christine Maggiore's claims in the film followed by her child's death. Additionally, I think the topic would be better served in a single article, rather than having to redundant articles trying to do separate treatments on the same basic topic. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article isn't about AIDS denialism or about Christine Maggiore. It's about a notable documentary. There's no reason to redirect it. I have added an article from the Canadian Press about the premiere. You may not like it. miniluv (talk) 22:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I may not like what? The source? No reason I wouldn't, but I also don't see it as adding notability. The showing may have caused fewer folks at the AIDS walk at a single premiere. And? Was this unusual? Did they have the same problem if other films premiered? Did it happen in other cities that had AIDs walks or other events at the time, or was this a single city incident? Is it a controversial message. Yes, but it still relates directly to Maggiore. The message does not stand apart from her, nor does the controversy. "AIDs denialism"? *scratching head* -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I didn't mean you personally might not like it. It's an article about the documentary from a notable major news service! How could that not count towards notability?? I don't know the answers to your questions but I don't see how they are relevant to deleting or redirecting this article. miniluv (talk) 23:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its partly about the documentary, but still mostly about Maggiore and her husband. I just can't see how it can be separated "cleanly" -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Two reviews?? If anything, that's a sign of how unnotable it is. Delete as it fails WP:NF and has no extraordinary or redeeming circumstances that would render the guidelines in WP:NF inappropriate in this case. naerii 22:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stong Keep. Bad-faith nom that smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Two reviews in widely-read journals in the entertainment industry, two newspaper articles about the controversy, three notable film festivals, and an award puts it well beyond WP:N. And im sure there are umpteen other reviews out there, just the editors of the article picked two good ones. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The RS issues as related specifically to WP:NF were discussed above. "I'm sure there are reliable sources" is not a strong argument, particularly when the review sources offered here have been blogs and personal websites (with two exceptions, only one of which partially satisfies NF). Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry... "bad-faith nom"? I won't repeat yet again why I feel that this topic does not meet notability criteria for a standalone article, but I'd hope you'd be willing to have at least minimal respect for a differing opinion. MastCell Talk 15:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it appears notable to me. And if the article does "end up as a coatrack", that can be solved by cleanup. --Pixelface (talk) 15:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's important to remember. Any article on a documentary, for example Supersize Me or Bowling for Columbine could plausibly become "coatracks" for various agendas, e.g. one paragraph about the film and 20 about politics, but obviously the solution is cleanup, not deletion. Notability should be the concern here. --Rividian (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's true. My concern is that the less reliably sourced material we have, the more likely a coatrack is to develop. A neutral, encyclopedic article can only be written if sufficient neutral, encyclopedic sources exist. In the absence of good sources, it's much easier to write a coatrack about AIDS denialism and much harder to write a standalone encyclopedia article. I think we're borderline here, at best. MastCell Talk 18:59, 24 September 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Other_Side_of_AIDS&oldid=1136107551"