Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stealing Mary

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 the consensus is to delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stealing Mary[edit]

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

Well-meaning docudrama, but no evidence offered of notability. Orange Mike | Talk 23:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fire Crown Productions. JohnInDC (talk) 12:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep Enough evidence of notability has been provided including third party references, including newspaper articles and review of the documentary. The documentary is educational and informative. It has met the notability criterion of Wikipedia and has more than enough sources to prove that. Marcelrios (talk) 02:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC) - Posts by sockpuppet of blocked user [1] struck out. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I currently dont see any evidence of this in the article. the http://www.nlfdc.ca/usr/pdf/NFDC2005.pdf "review" is by an organization that financially sponsored the film and so is not independent. The http://www.telefilm.ca/en/telefilm/telefilm/about-telefilm "Telefilm has made stimulating demand for Canadian screen-based content one of the top priorities of its corporate plan." not exactly a neutral reliable source. (and besides you cut and paste violate Wikipedia's copyright) the http://www.rn-ds-partnership.com/reconstruction/beothuk.html were the people who made the models for the films, also not independent. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am of the same opinion. My analysis of the sources cited:

(1) canmedia.com [2] A catalogue entry from a company distributing the film: not independent.

(2) nlfdc.ca [3] A document from the Newfoundland and Labrador Film Development Corporation. Again, not independent, if I understand correctly: the NLFDC is actively involved in promoting the films listed. In any case only mentions Stealing Mary briefly, as one of many projects.

(3) rn-ds-partnership.com [4] website for a business involved with the film - not independent, and does nothing to establish notability anyway.

(4) telefilm.ca [5] a catalogue entry.

(5) YouTube [6] An upload advertising the film for sale - not remotely independent.

AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Telefilm Canada is a Federal Cultural Agency and the mention in their catalog is proof enough that the Documentary meets the notability criterion. There are thousands of other well referenced articles of Canadian Films that use Telefilms as REFERENCE. So your argument stands very little chance of survival. Telefilms Canada has always been a reliable source.Cut and copy-paste ? Are you kidding ? Marcelrios (talk) 02:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC) ~~::::(3) rn-ds-partnership.com [7] Busienss involved ? How do prove that ? Marcelrios (talk) 02:43, 20 October 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

Because they say so: "Reconstruction of the skull of one of the last of the Beothuk Indians from Newfoundland in Canada, made in 2005 for the television program "Stealing Mary" for Windup Films." AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mention in a catalog does not demonstrate notability. It demonstrates that the film exists. Nothing more. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:: The catalog is not the only reference there. There are plenty of other sources that qualify and makes the Documentary worthy of being on Wikipedia. Placing a tag is easy. The article may require a cleanup or more secondary references. But the primary sources suggest that the article is strong enough, informative and educational. Thanks Marcelrios (talk) 02:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How many times do you have to be told that primary sources cannot establish notability? As for your 'plenty of other sources', provide them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you were worried about time, after it was redirected you should have drafted an article with the sources in your user sandbox and THEN restored it. You would have had all the time in the world to actually show us that it is in fact notable and covered by third party sources. (And you should stop spending your time now edtiwarring to reinsert the copyright plot description)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. JohnInDC (talk) 02:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have searched for the necessary third-party in-depth coverage necessary to establish notability, and have found no real evidence for it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:: What about the primary sources. Does that not meet the notability criteria as well ? Are you Canadians or part of Canadian Film Task Force ? I doubt that. The Film is a high budget docu-drama. Deletion of this article would be quite shocking. I think this is a biased point of view. If this article is deleted then many more articles will have to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcelrios (talk • contribs) 03:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC) [reply]

What part of "No, primary sources do not establish notability" do you not understand? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

::The RedPenOfDoom do you not understand that there are references all over the world wide web and on Google. What surprises me is that after two years a bunch of editors decide to delete this well referenced article. Why was it not deleted when it was created. I think there is a biased view. It meets the general notability criteria. We need an expert from the Canadian Film task force and not editors that are only good at placing delete templates. Marcelrios (talk) 03:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

what i understand and what you apparently do not understand is that claims of "there are sources all over the web" is not one of the criteria for having a stand alone article. The criteria are that specific reliable third party sources with significant content about the subject actually be provided. And you have only provided primary sources or insignificant one line mentions, or a catalog entry that says nothing about the subject other than it exists. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The problem is that the only sources out there are either primary, junk, or cannot be used to show notability in any context. There are primary sources, but no amount of primary sources can show that a film passes notability guidelines. What we would need would be coverage in reliable sources such as a news article commenting about the film, a movie review by a reliable source that isn't involved with the film in any context, or mention in a book published through a reputable publisher. That just isn't out there and while the film did receive some funding from notable enough companies, that doesn't give notability as notability is not inherited. As far as saying WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and would merit deletion if this goes through, then odds are that they would merit deletion even if a dozen RS were found that proved notability. It would be a different story if we were arguing this point over an article that had 3-4 RS that passed Wikipedia's guidelines, but in this instance we're not and we can't keep an article that doesn't have sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. Lack of coverage from reliable third party sources. -SFK2 (talk) 04:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I thought of starting this AfD last night for the reasons already given: lack of coverage in secondary sources. The film itself seems interesting and, as the nominator says, well-meaning. But that does not make it notable. There is also a strong conflict of interest from the creator (aka the sock puppet whose comments above were stricken) - see this RSN discussion about links to the website for the company that does SEO for these film makers. --bonadea contributions talk 08:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Resorting to socks is the last refuge of a lost argument and wastes everybody's time. See also discussion at WP:EAR#Stealing Mary. Spinning Spark 09:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability 78.105.23.161 (talk) 07:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The best reliable source that could be found is just a passing mention. -- Whpq (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only source I could find was IMDB [8] which, as we know, is user generated and not a good indicator of notability.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:12, 26 October 2013 (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.