Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill W. (film)

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bill W. (film)[edit]

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

Non notable movie. Article created the day of the release in New York and L.A. It has not received significant coverage from sources independent from the subject, it has not been widely distributed, received no awards, and is not not historically notable (as determined by wikipedia's film notability guidelines). Coffeepusher (talk) 14:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, possibly speedy keep. I don't understand the nominator's basis for this nomination since there's a Village Voice review already quoted in the article and the Rotten Tomatoes page also linked in the article leads to reviews in the Los Angeles Times,[1], New York Post[2], and Newsday[3]. And more is readily found: here's Daily Variety[4] and LA Weekly[5]. Not that it matters for notability purposes, but all of these reviews are positive.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually all of those sources are considered "trivial" under wikipedia's notability guidelines for films. "examples of trivial coverage include...capsule reviews." Each one of them is a capsule review. Based on what you have found we find that there is only trivial coverage in secondary sources.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, those reviews contain substantive commentary and are certainly more than trivial. I can't imagine any possible way that deleting sourced content about this film improves Wikipedia. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

they are capsule reviews, all contextualization with little commentary. For commentary I count one an a half paragraphs nothing critical, once sentence nothing critical, three paragraphs one critical statement about aesthetics, two paragraphs and the only really critical review, four sentences nothing critical. How are these not capsule reviews?Coffeepusher (talk) 00:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The reviews that Arxiloxos cites are far from trivial. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The reviews cited are mostly standard newspaper reviews with the usual mix of explanation and commentary. To call these "capsule reviews" and eliminate them from consideration would eliminate the vast majority of newspaper reviews cited on Wikipedia. None are purely plot summaries, but comment on the good and bad things about the film, so the characterization that these contain contain "all contextualization with little commentary" is inaccurate. Michitaro (talk) 12:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This AFD is not a substitute for cleanup. At least one review from any establishment can make this movie notable. Why would widespread papers matter more? --George Ho (talk) 19:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SOUND Keep. The thing has only been recently released and is getting more coverage than what even might be expected for an Indie documentary. Sheesh. While the nominator is welcome to his opinion about what contitutes trivial coverage, we are more concerned with coverage being IN reliable sources and offering enough information with which to write and create a properly encyclopedic article. We have just that. Sources offering enough information with which to write an article to benefit our readers. And in agreement with those above, notability requires the availability of sources, and not that the be IN an article. Indiewire[6] is quite substantial in its coverage. So is that of The Fix,[7] Village Voice,[8] Orange Papers,[9] Covering Media,[10] and Shockya.[11] And contrary to the nom's feeling otherwise, Los Angeles Times[12] offers more-than-trivial coverage, New York Post[13] offers more-than-trivial coverage, Newsday[14] offers more-than-trivial coverage, and Variety[15] offers more-than-trivial coverage. There are many other such examples found through diligent BEFORE. Adding them all together we have an overwhelming meeting of WP:GNG and thus WP:Notability (films) is easily met. I would suggest that the nominator might wish to withdraw in the face of the cold front? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you seem to be suggesting that a AFD closing as keep is a black mark on a nominators record, don't worry my "e"-go can take it :). In my opinion there are a lot more good reasons for letting an AFD run it's course than there are to give it a premature withdraw.Coffeepusher (talk) 11:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A withdrawl is not a "black mark", and sure... an AFD might run for the full seven days. The essays WP:OUTCOMES and WP:SNOW suggest why an AFD might be closed early when there appears an overwhelming consensus in either direction. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with the essays, neither one of them elaborate on your "suggestion" that I withdraw the nomination which is still a puzzling comment for you to make. I'm chalking your suggestion that I withdraw the nomination up to the fact that you believed it was a good setup for what you thought was a clever pipe comment.Coffeepusher (talk) 02:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pipe comment? Interesting, but your "clever pipe comment" remark need not be addressed. Essays have their place, even if not policy. I suggested a withdrawal in light of consensus running strongly against a delete, and you declined. A close in a few days will serve the encyclopedia just as well as a snow close might. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

oh, I just checked your page, and you use the AFD tool. That explains a lot.Coffeepusher (talk) 02:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your point being? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That you keep score, and display a link on your page for others to see. It explains why you would think I might want to withdraw...because you would.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I might. But you need not.

It IS an interesting tool, yes? I keep a link on my userpage simply for easy access... so I (and others) can occasionally check on myself without having to dig through my talk page acrhives for the link as it was provided to me last year. In now looking, I see my deletes are outnumbering my keeps... but even with my growing deletionist tendencies (gasp), my opinions in either direction are far more often in line with consensus than not. The tool provides better information than THIS table I had been keeping on my AFD opinions. Way less work too. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The assertion that the film is not notable based on the number of theatres screening the movie is not a valid one. With rare exceptions, most documentaries never have a wide theatrical release. For example, none of the five Academy Award nominees for Best Documentary Feature this year were shown in more than 100 theatres during its widest release. The eventual winner, Undefeated was in only five theatres its opening weekend (compared to nine for Bill W. (film)) and expanded to only 21 theatres during its widest release. Igbo (talk) 22:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree fully. Distribution, awards, historic notability, etc., are attributes (many set to apply to older films) that we might consider if the GNG is not met, but they are NOT mandates of WP:NF. As we already have WP:GNG surpassed, these "attributes" for when the GNG might not be met, do not even need to be considered. A film topic does not need to meet them if otherwise determinable as notable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Significant coverage has been show per WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 17:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Film has received coverage in reliable sources in the form of full reviews. A capsule review is a short blurb about the film, usually in a long list of films that simply recap the plot; that's not what we have here. -- Whpq (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have been making the case for mention of this film in the Alcoholics Anonymous main article Since February 2011. That case applies to this article as well, which is detailed in my argument with Coffeepusher who appears to be universally opposed to the notability of this film. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alcoholics_Anonymous#AA_in_film Souris40 (talk) 19:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As it seems consensus is finding this film notable, inclusion at Alcoholics Anonymous#AA in film is not inappropriate. I see no problem there that a discussion here is not addressing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another approach to satisfying WP:Notability (films) is whether the film features significant involvement by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career. Bill W. was edited by Patrick Gambuti, Jr., who is an Emmy Award winning editor. I would think that working on the first feature-length documentary film about someone considered to be one of the most Important People of the 20th Century would be a major part of someones career. Souris40 (talk) 13:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nice that Gambuti has won Emmys,[16] but less cogent in this case than we having wide coverage OF the film itself. If there were an article on Patrick Gambuti showing this film as being a "major part of his career",[17] through sources and awards and coverage of his work editing it, that argument would have stronger merit. WP:SIGCOV is by far the stongest argument here. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 14:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Souris has been trying to get this film redlinked on the AA page since Febuary...when it had been screened at one show. At that time it didn't have any notability yet ~~Souris edit warred for a little while against consensus~~. If this page is kept then we should include it on the page.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear here, the discussion between you and he on that talk page does not make it appear at all that he wishes it to be a redlink, but was him simply arguing for its inclusion therein. And rather than "edit warred for a little while against consensus, the discussuion on that talk page was between only three people... you, he, and an editor now-indef-blocked for repeated BLP violations... three do not create consensus, specially when one of the three gets blocked for repeated policy violations. And the one-time reversion of his proper February 15 edit to the article resulted in that discussion... just as behavior policy would have happen... and did not turn into an edit war. So let's not color this civil discussion with use of the term edit war, as doing so misrepresents what actually occured. And even were it to be deleted here (unlikely) and become a redlink there, its iclusion there is perfectly fine, not against policy nor guideline, and supported by consensus. What must be underscored here is that a topic need not itself be notable, nor must it have an article, to possibly merit a mention in some other article if properly sourced. That said, it's there now... AND sourced.. and will remain no matter what happens here. The guidelines toward a film's notability perhaps allowing a separate article are not at all the same as policy allowing at least a mention to be included elsewhere. Even in the unlikley case of it somehow to be found non-notable and deleted here, the film would still merit a mention in the list there per its verifiability... and THAT's per policy. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. That did not happen, nor does the record support it. To paraphrase a quote from another notability discussion, the penumbra cast by a large number of lesser value sources added together can meet notability in the same way that a criminal case can be won with circumstanial evidence alone. In the case of saving this film page from deletion, and preserving its rightful place on the AA page, the scales are clearly tipped in the direction of "keep." Souris40 (talk) 23:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you are both correct, I will strike the edit war comment. However we can not disregard The Artist's contributions. While I do understand that his tenure at Wikipedia ended poorly, he was a valuable contributor on the AA page for years, and consensus is not determined by a set number of editors, rather all the editors who came to the discussion which in this case was three, two established editors of the AA page, and one newcomer to the community, and let's be honest in February it wasn't notable. I'm a little surprised MichaelQSchmidt at your heavy handed approach to including this film no matter what on a page you have never edited before. Perhaps you should become a community participant before coming down on us for not following policy as you would have it. Unfortunately I must admit that my participation on this discussion has contributed to the tone of this discussion so I can only complain so hard.Coffeepusher (talk) 11:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It has coverage under WP:RS and passes WP:NF. →TSU ^T* 17:49, 25 May 2012 (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.