Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Endgame (2007 film)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. It seems that there's a general consensus that he topic is notable, if only barely. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endgame (2007 film)

Endgame (2007 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nomination, per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 17#Endgame (2007 film) (closed), closed as overturn and list at this venue. I am not expressing an opinion either way. PeterSymonds (talk) 01:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NF, IMDB can't be used as evidence of a film's notability. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can't be impressed with those Google News and Google scholar results if you've actually read them. Taking Google News first; the first result doesn't mention Endgame at all when clicked on, the text google is previewing isn't in the article (or the other "related" articles for that first result) and is a press release anyway, issued by Alex Jones (primary source). The second is a press release issued by Alex Jones (primary source). The third is a foreign language blog run on phpBB (I could have written it, nowhere near reliable). The fourth is hotnews.ro which, despite the name looks like it might be an organization that might have some editors, although I can't tell because it's in Romanian. The fifth contains no discussion of the film at all, the word "endgame" (in lower case) is used once as a throwaway reference. The sixth is a story about how Alex Jones's megaphone was stolen! The seventh looks promising because it's boston.com but it's actually a reader comment (i.e. forum comment) in the comment thread of an article that is nothing at all to do with Endgame. The Google Scholar results aren't any better. The first is a PDF from his publisher (he's listed on their client page) promoting him (not the film) and mentions the film as part of his bio (which is what the PDF is). The second is literally a link to youtube.com and leads to nothing at all to do with Jones or Endgame. The third gives no indication at all of exactly what it's referring to but I'm thinking "SATAN'S NEW WORLD ORDER PYRAMID SCHEME" might not be of great import. The fourth refers to youtube and is in the context of ski resorts! It's very hard to see how any of these or even all of them together can lead anyone to believe the film is notable. I'm not saying it's not notable, it might well be notable for other reasons, but not because of the results you've linked to. As instructed (talk) 14:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have just performed a cleanup and slight expansion of the article, making sure to not use any of the examples you described above. With its current coverage in reliable sources, the article is now properly sourced and meets the requisites of WP:NF. MichaelQSchmidt (talk)
By requisites of WP:Notability (films) do you mean "The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics" ? If so, which are the two or more full length reviews by nationally known critics? As instructed (talk) 00:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I myself make note of the WP:NF general principles which state "As with all subjects, a film should satisfy the general notability guideline" and "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". With significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such requirement is met and WP:GNG has been satisfied. As I wrote above, sources are now in the article. For instance, Josh Rosenblatt is a widely respected writer and critic who reviews for Austin Chronicle, Huffington Post, Unfit Times and Rotten Tomatoes among others [1]... and I'm surprised there is not yet a Wikipedia article about him... but that lack does not make him less respected within his field. Thank you for having me clarify. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be difficult for you to want to keep per me, as I argue against the reasons MichaelQSchmidt has given. As instructed (talk) 12:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the back-and-forth between the two of you, and the guidelines you quoted, made me realize it was a keeper. I would like to paraphrase the "General notability guideline" that says that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." There are non trivial mentions of the film Endgame in The New Republic and City Pages. The Austin Chronicle article is a full review of the film. The Romanian news article is intriguing, as Hotnews.ro employs some 50 journalists. The perspective of a Romanian is needed to judge that one. The Los Angeles Times article is a trivial mention, surely, but it provides an interesting fact... which points to its popularity amongst users at Amazon. Why the LATimes writer included that fact is unknown to me, perhaps the Amazon reviews were glowing and demonstrated a strong fanbase, or perhaps they smelt of some kind of marketing campaign, but nonetheless the fact is there and useful. Cheers, Varks Spira (talk) 19:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The entirety of Citypages.com's coverage of the film is not even a whole sentence. It's the second fragment of a sentence that says "...this year's Endgame: A Blueprint for Global Enslavement was his best film yet, a comprehensive investigation of our brave new world that named names". It seems unlikely that you can reasonably claim those 18 words (excluding the title) constitutes significant coverage that WP:Notability is looking for - i.e. that "address(es) the subject directly in detail". I agree that The LA Times article's coverage is trivial. See the rest of my reasoning with respect to the other points you mention in the 2nd and 3rd bullet points of my delete comment below. As instructed (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep: I think the argument for Josh Rosenblatt being a nationally recognised critic is convincing enough. That plus the DVD Talk review by Glenn Erickson qualify as the full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics required at WP:Notability (films). As instructed (talk) 15:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (changed to keep, immediately above). Going just on the arguments and sources, with the reasoning as follows:
  • The claim is that it meets notability because of multiple Google news and scholar hits but when they're actually read it turns out it doesn't.
  • The claim is then that it meets WP:Notability (films) but the claim turns out to be not that it meets any of the specific requirements there, but instead that it meets the general notability guideline, so the claim is really that it meets WP:Notability rather than WP:Notability (films). Interestingly, I think there could be an argument put forward that it meets WP:Notability (films), basically because the article has precisely two reviews in it and WP:Notability (films) asks for at least two. It seems obvious to me that if there are two reviews in the article and the notability requirement is two reviews then you immediately have a way to assess how notable the film is; by assessing the reviews. The problem with this is that one of the reviews is on a Romanian website by a guy (he's only only ever referred to as D.S so I'm just assuming he's a guy) whose national coverage as a film critic is very doubtful (the viewing hits listed on the review page are only 800, which doesn't seem very national). It seems reasonable to expect to be able to find two reviews in the country and/or language the film is released in, rather than having to go to Romania to find one of them. The other review (Josh Rosenblatt) doesn't seem to me to fit the description of a nationally recognised film critic; he has no film reviews that I can find in the Huff Post (there are general news articles but not film reviews) and being on Rotten Tomatoes doesn't cut it. For me, he's a local film critic rather than a national one. It's also a tongue-in-cheek review that humourously assesses the film on it's entertainment value rather than as a serious documentary. So the film can't meet WP:Notability (films) via the two reviews in the article, which is a serious problem for an article about a film.
  • So we're left with the article needing to be assessed only on whether it meets significant coverage in reliable sources, i.e. WP:Notability. For me, it doesn't. IMDB doesn't count. The New Republic article is about Jones rather than the film; the film merits half a paragraph in an article that spans 2 pages with 15 paragraphs - it's incidental coverage rather than significant coverage. The Los Angeles Times article is about a different film of Jones's and barely mentions Endgame (literally just as the title of one of his films) and so isn't even approaching significant coverage. Citypages.com is again an article about Jones rather than Endgame and only mentions Endgame incidentally (one sentence), so it can't be significant coverage. The two remaining sources (the two reviews) need to be assessed under the criteria at WP:Notability (films) rather than WP:Notability and, as mentioned above, they don't meet the criteria there.
As instructed (talk) 12:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then thank goodness all notability criteria first and foremost must neet the GNG, as you have pointed out this one does. Thank you for your assistance and insight. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 15:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken. My third bullet point above starting "So we're left with the article needing to be assessed only on whether it meets significant coverage in reliable sources, i.e. WP:Notability. For me, it doesn't." is an assessment of whether the article meets WP:GNG or not. As you can see by reading that paragraph I very clearly state that I don't believe it meets WP:GNG, along with reasons why I don't believe it meets it. Please could you strike out or otherwise correct your comment directly above where you erroneously claim that I do believe it meets WP:GNG, when in fact I've clearly and unambiguously stated it does not meet WP:GNG. As instructed (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well... then since independent documentaries rarely get the press coverage of big-budget, big-studio, highly-touted blockbusters, we'll have to agree to disagree on it meeting WP:N through WP:GNG. I believe for what is is, it passes. Thank you again. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I don't have a problem at all with you disagreeing with me; disagreement is one of the key components of an AfD. It's just unfortunate that your method of disagreement is to pretend that I say the article does meet WP:GNG when in fact I very clearly say the article doesn't meet WP:GNG, along with a detailed breakdown of why it doesn't (hopefully you're aware that WP:GNG is WP:Notability, it's just a redirect). It's a particularly bad form of argument to simply state that someone is saying literally the opposite of what they are saying just because you disagree with them. It's not even really an argument as such; it's either a mistake (if done unintentionally) or an outright lie (if done intentionally). Anyway, regardless of that, I'm not sure I understand the reasoning in your latest comment. It seems like you're agreeing that there isn't significant coverage in the sources provided but you don't think that matters because independent documentaries don't get much media coverage. If you are then you are effectively saying that the article doesn't meet the requirements of WP:Notability ("significant coverage in reliable sources"). If it doesn't meet that requirement then it can't have an article, regardless of why if doesn't meet that requirement. As far as I'm aware, Wikipedia don't care why an article doesn't meet the requirements of it's core policies, it just cares whether the article does or not. As instructed (talk) 18:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake... in re-reading one of your earlier lengthy tomes, you did write " I'm not saying it's not notable, it might well be notable for other reasons" That you disagree with my interpretation of WP:N, fine. And I did not include IMDB as a source of notability. I'm quite satisified with the sources in the article and the dozens available that are not yet included. I'm sorry that my previous statement confused you. Please do not read things into my comments that are not there. At no time did I say that this film was non-notable. I should have more clearly said, "Thank goodness that WP:N is not written to pander to only highly-touted big-budget blockbuster films, and that it accepts that independent documentaries can show notability just as this one has". Further, this particular article meets all core policies, so editors need not think it dos not. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that I disagree with your interpretation of WP:N. It says "Significant coverage in reliable sources" and "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail". That doesn't leave much room for disagreement; the article definitely needs significant coverage in reliable sources to be notable and to be kept and I'm sure we both agree it does. In light of my point by point analysis of each of the 5 sources currently in the article (last bullet point of this diff [2]), which of those sources do you believe constitutes significant coverage that addresses the subject directly in detail?. As instructed (talk) 20:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reviews If no one looks, no one will find. However... there is an in-depth significant review at DVD Talk... one that is deals specificaly with the documentary.... and another at DVD Verdict. Add them to the article if you wish. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DVD Talk and DVD Verdict would not be classed as reliable sources. I can ask at the reliable sources noticeboard if you would like but having spend some time reading that noticeboard and the relevant policies recently I can guarantee they will say they don't. They fail WP:V#SELF. See WP:Reliable sources and WP:Verifiability#Reliable_sources for the criteria that sources need to meet. As instructed (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per past discussions in other AfD's and at the various film pages... reliable sources are not mandated to be ONLY hardcopy newpapers and magazines OR their web versions. Guideline states "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context". DVD Talk has been accepted by the Wikipedia community as meeting the criteria allowing it to be called a reliable source for film reviews. If you do not believe that [[DVD Talk} may be "generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand", all well and good... but that boat has already saileda dn it IS a reliable source for this instance. Best regards MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 23:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Glenn Erickson in his DVD Talk review has written one of the most honest reviews of Endgame, even though he misspells the Bilderberg Group as the Bildenberg Group at one point (2 out of 3 correct spellings ain't bad). I think this review will be helpful in providing a neutral viewpoint. Varks Spira (talk) 00:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how these two reviews help the case for notability. Earlier, I asked which of the 5 sources currently in the article you believed constitutes significant coverage that addresses the subject directly in detail. This was in the context of not using WP:Notability (films) but instead using the general guidelines at WP:Notability. You didn't answer that question but produced these two reviews instead. Now, if you want to judge the notability of the article based on these reviews then WP:Notability (films) applies; that policy wants at least two reviews from nationally recognized critics in reliable sources that are independent of the article subject. These two reviews aren't nationally recognized critics from WP:RS though; they're your Joe Blogs off the internet that are not paid and not required to have any qualifications except being able to watch films and are not required to have any experience except their ability to write nicely in English. Further, the reviews are written as promotion (which makes them not independent of the article subject). These are all things stated on their web site - "a legitimate film and television marketing company"[3], "If you'd like to have your DVD release featured on Verdict, all the details can be found on our promotion page"[4], "This is an unpaid position. We will do our best to get you into as many advanced press screenings as possible."[5], "How much experience do I need? If you know your way around the English language and can express your thoughts in a clear and engaging manner, you're in good shape. You don't have to be a professional, but you may very well become one by working with us."[6]. So, if the two reviews already in the article can't meet the requirement of WP:Notability (films) when those reviewers are qualified and paid news organization staff that are independant from the subject (i.e. are WP:RS) then how can these two new reviews meet the criteria when they're unpaid, unqualified average internet users writing reviews to promote the DVD's in a WP:self published source?. In other words, these reviews aren't a step up in the quality of sources to resolve the problem with WP:Notability (films), they're a step down that still leaves the article short of WP:Notability (films). As instructed (talk) 01:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • YOU are claiming it is a "tongue-in-cheek" review, just as I may claim that you are a such-and-such Wikipedia editor. You can't dismiss full reviews of the film simply because you put out a few adjectives you thought appropriately described Rosenblatt's film review and supported your argument. Josh Rosenblatt continues to work as a journalist at UnjustTimes.com and while he may not be nationally recognized, he has done an excellent review that is helpful in understanding the subject which in this case is a film. I'm baffled by this requirement that articles should be written by nationally recognized journalists when attempting to establish whether a subject meets the notability criteria necessary for a Wikipedia article. What happens when Josh Rosenblatt has been around for a decade and is now nationally recognized? All his previous work suddenly gets more respect with regards to Wikipedia guidelines? Varks Spira (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not dismissing the review because it is tongue in cheek; I find it quite amusing and I like it. I'm saying that it doesn't satisfy the criteria specified by policy at WP:Notability (films). Once you have accepted that Josh Rosenblatt is not a nationally recognised critic this review cannot be used for the purposes of WP:Notability (films). If he cannot be used for that purpose then the article fails WP:Notability (films). As instructed (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Josh Rosenblatt needs an article, that's for certain... but the current lack does not mean he's un-notable... only that it has yet to be written. He is co-founding editor of Unfit Times, a freelance writer and critic, and has written for other RS such as The Huffington Post, The Austin Chronicle, The Texas Observer, and that paragon of film reviewing Rotten Tomatoes. As for his wide recognition as a critic, his reviews have been quoted in such as Movietome, Wired, Metacritic, Sidereel, IFC, Top Ten Reviews, Mahalo, GreenCine Daily, and many, many others [7]. I think his national recognition as a respected reviewer is assured. And since Endgame debuted in Austin (his hometown), it is reasonable to expect that he might have been the guy there to review the film [8]. His coverage is further indication that the film meets WP:GNG. Thank you. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics."
Failure: This film was not widely distributed.
  • "The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following - Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release."
Failure: This film is not historically notable, nor is it five years old.
  • "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."
Failure: This movie is not deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, etc. nor is it five years old.
  • "The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release."
Failure: This move is not five years old so there's no way it could have been re-released or screened at a film festival.
  • "The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema."
Failure: No evidence that the movie was featured as part of a documentary on the history of cinema.
  • "The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking."
Failure: This movie has received no major award.
  • "The film was selected for preservation in a national archive."
Failure: No evidence that this film was preserved in a national archive.
  • "The film is 'taught' as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program."
Failure: Again, no evidence this movie was taught at an accredited university with a notable film program.
This clearly fails WP:NF. I can't believe we're even discussing this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coment. No, it does not fail WP:NF. With respects, you forgot to make mention that WP:NF begins with the very important phrases "As with all subjects, a film should satisfy the general notability guideline" and "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". This film easily meets those important opening caveats that grant it notability. The list you use as exclusionary is specifically described by guideline as "attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist". Guideline does not state that the attributes must exist in order to be notable, but acts to advise that if they do "the required sources are likely to exist" in order to encourage editors to be diligent in the searches for sources. The reliable sources meeting notability were found without use of an inapplicable check-list of attributes. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on the above and the "critical reception" section of the article which pretty much tells you how unnotable this film is. When the "notability" part of the article reads like it is the special pleading of a 5 year old, this obviously doesn't pass threshhold. Eusebeus (talk) 13:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per The New Republic, Los Angeles Times, Hotnews.ro, DVD Verdict, and DVD Talk. Passes WP:NF. Joe Chill (talk) 14:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NF, trivial coverage can't be used to establish notability. The New Republic, LA Times and City Pages articles barely mention this film. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I accidentally added The New Republic. LA Times is a four paragraph review so it isn't trivial. So that is four sources with significant coverage. I didn't say City Pages. Your !vote above ignores "As with all subjects, a film should satisfy the general notability guideline" and "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Joe Chill (talk) 16:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking at the sources cited by the article. The LA Times article isn't even about Endgame and only mentions it in passing (a half a sentence, in fact). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that makes it three which still makes it pass WP:NF. Joe Chill (talk) 17:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Three nationally known critics? What are the three? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:NF: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The other stuff can show notability, but nothing can override WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Joe Chill is correct. With respects, and as pointed out above, it is an error to assert that WP:NF mandates nationally known critics. It does not. It simply advises (among other attributes to consider) that IF there were nationally known critics, then there is a presumption that sources might exist... so as to encourage editors to be diligent in their search for sources that meet WP:N. If sources are found that meet WP:GNG (IE: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", then there is no need to look at inapplicable attributes in order to find reasons to exclude a subject that has already met the inclusion criteria of WP:N. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I was a little confused about WP:NF too. It's a guideline to let you know the film is definitely okay for notability but not a criteria. Varks Spira (talk) 19:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And for proper balance, I did add the DVD Talk's negative review. WP:N has been amply met. editors need not agree with the subject matter... point here being that I do not agree with it myself... but it is the coverage of a subject per WP:RS that can allow it to meet notability criteria for inclusion. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:26, 25 October 2009 (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/Endgame_(2007_film)&oldid=1137828416"