Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stopping Traffic

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. Seems to be general consensus that there are enough sources to satisfy WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) ansh666 03:32, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping Traffic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

A paid promotional puff piece, poorly sourced, fails WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 13:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep leaving aside the "paid promotion" issue, it is actually not that badly sourced, with a local CBC Saskatchewan piece and then Associated Press story (in different forms). Then I see we also have a bylined piece from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. I think the film meets GNG. Yes, the creator has been blocked but I think we have a notable documentary film on an important topic. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. not yet notable. And the article is advocacy -- advocacy on a noble cause, but still advocacy. DGG ( talk ) 16:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is some coverage, but without the depth required to establish notability according to WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Perhaps it will become notable after the release, and someone who doesn't have a conflict of interest will write about it. Rentier (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Pardon, but the film has released and has more than just "some" coverage Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It had several pre-premiere showings. I'm referring to the public release in September 2017. I disagree that the depth of coverage is sufficient to satisfy the inclusion criteria. Note how references 2, 6, 7, 8 and 10 have the same title, being rehashes of the same news. 2 and 10 are in fact the same article. The film has received no notable awards or nominations, no "full-length reviews by nationally known critics", there is no indication that the film is widely distributed.. Rentier (talk) 09:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Pardon again, but there is no policy demand that we treat its multiple screenings as if inconsequential. And please, we DO NOT use WP:OEN for films less than five years old or as if its suggestions for instances which might indicate notability were themselves mandates to somehow over-rule WP:GNG. I am minded that Star Telegram is quite in-depth and substantive, as are Blasting News and Siglo. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to draft. Level of sources seems to indicate notability that is likely to develop over a relatively short term. If moved to draft and later submitted for restoration to mainspace, a neutral evaluator can decide at that time whether the article has been rendered neutral and well-sourced enough to merit inclusion. bd2412 T 02:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per meeting WP:NF through existing coverage. While wonderful if or when it happens, we do not demand perfection. Any concerns over tone or "advocacy" can be dealt with through regular editing. We do not delete notable topics over ugliness, we instead fix. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Michael Q Schmidt - it's not a "Puff piece" as the nominator suggests - the topic of the film is worthy itself. It could do with some tidying up, but find me an article on here that doesn't. It needs fixing, so let's fix it. Dane|Geld 19:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as has reliable sources coverage such as Star Telegram and Blasting News Atlantic306 (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is an article written by a "retired engineer" who had "served as Senior Manager in an aircraft manufacturing company", posted on a citizen journalism website, a reliable source for an encyclopedia article about a film? Rentier (talk) 17:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well if we leave out Blasting News that still leaves sources such as Star Telegram and Siglo Atlantic306 (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that the Siglo article is a more or less literal translation of the original AP story, as are the articles in CBC, Boston Herald, Fox News and US News. It seems to me that the independent reliable coverage is limited to the AP story and the Star Telegram article. The latter is something of a local news: "Shree, who is spiritual director at the Siddhayatan Spiritual Retreat Center and Ashram in Windom about 100 miles northeast of Fort Worth". If that's enough to meet WP:GNG, then I have nothing to add. Rentier (talk) 20:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon, but the WP:SIGCOV also found through independent sources CBC News, Boston Herald, AP News, and even San Francisco Chronicle and Beloit Daily News make it kinda hard to deny WP:GNG. Please go review WP:NFP. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Meets WP:NFP per a source review. Concerns about the article's tone can be addressed by copy editing it and discussion on the article talk page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Does seem to meet WP:NFP.Real reviews in real publications.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and allow restoration to userspace if asked, because what the one fundamental policy the Keeps have considered or said yet, is our Terms of Use at Wikimedia Foundation which says in bold: These Terms of Use prohibit engaging in deceptive activities....As part of these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation and considering the user apparently never cared to openly disclose it, but worse actually make an extensive list of such activities, it unquestionably shows they must not be given the luxury of such covert attempts. After all, our WP:Five pillars says, Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia and must not be used for promotion or advertising. This is no different if we honestly take our Terms of Use seriously, since one exception will inevitably lead any advertiser to ask for it again, that is not concept of this encyclopedia, especially when such votes above only care to mention "Sources exist", "Has sources", "Good sources, "Article can be improved" (the latter, how exactly? If the Terms of use is different than any simple content guideline). Another comment then says "it's not a puff piece" yet that's contrary to what our Terms of use listed above says it to be. SwisterTwister talk 21:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A request for Closure has been filed. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 14:30, 11 August 2017 (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.