Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stray Cinema

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 no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stray Cinema

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

I found this article months ago and I nominated it for speedy in December with which it was removed and added a source, however with the comment that it was still questionable therefore here we are at AfD. FWIW, my searches have found nothing better than this. SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)\[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:ORG through coverage. Sorry nominator, your google-foo must be broken. I found non-PR in Inside Film, The Age, Screen Daily, and others. This needs work, not deletion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MQS's analysis. Passes WP:GNG. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, 2 sources above only mention this "film" in passing and make no comment on its merit and the other is only promotional and very short.--Grahame (talk) 01:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Response @Grahamec: With a bit more digging, it actually seems there is far wider coverage available of "Stray Cinema" and open source films: Daily Telegraph, Brisbane Times, The Age, Open Source, Sydney Morning Herald, Encore Magazine, Open Business (1), Open Business (2), Medien ABC (German), Scoop, Courier Mail, The New Zealand Open Source Society, DV Guru, etc. And so rather than it being just one specific film, it is also a locus where filmmakers can get footage to create their own projects using that open source footage. Those sources shared, I think if not found notable to Australia and/or New Zealand through coverage and expanded with the FOUND sources, it could serve our readers if partly merged to open-source film and then this "article title" redirected there. Thoughts? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am satisfied with any redirect or such, whatever is best. SwisterTwister talk 18:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 21:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per MQS. Insert CleverPhrase Here 00:36, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I believe the coverage I found and offered shows the topic as meeting WP:GNG and that this topic has the notability enough to merit a keep. My mentioning a merge and redirect was only a secondary consideration. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:57, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 23:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but without a strong objection to Merge and Redirect to Open-source film if there's anything to merge. That's an impressive list of sources, but upon inspection most are brief mentions and a whole lot of them are the exact same article printed in different places. Certainly fails WP:NFILM/WP:GNG, but if there's something to use over at the open-source film article, go for it (that article, by the way, is currently an indiscriminate link farm, but that's another issue). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, guideline tells us that when we have few substantial sources, multiple less-than-substantial ones can show a notability. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt: Specifically to which guideline do you refer? Insert CleverPhrase Here 04:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Insertcleverphrasehere: "Specifically" I use the community standards set by WP:N. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt: "specifically" what part of WP:N as I am not aware of any such guideline allowing us to ignore the 'significant coverage' part of 'significant reliable sources' in favour of a large quantity of trivial mentions (as you appear to be suggesting). I have had another read through WP:N and have not found what it is you refer to, perhaps I have missed it or else misunderstood your above comment? Note that your above attempted link to WP:SUBSTANTIAL is a dead link, so again it is unclear to what you refer. Insert CleverPhrase Here 20:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC) <outdent>[reply]

@Insertcleverphrasehere: Wow. Have you never read WP: BASIC and its instruction "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". And in a personal intepretation of trivial, you may be forgetting "directly and in detail" does not mandate it also be reams of coverage. What may have been lost on you is that the proffered link to WP:SUBSTANTIAL is intentionally red to underscore that SUBSTANTIAL is NOT a guideline requirement. So in looking past what is not a guide, we have WP:GNG which is a guide. And if we understand it as a guide, it does not suggest that editors banter over it as an existing community standard, nor that we blithely ignore the {already offered) coverage available of "Stray Cinema" on Daily Telegraph, Brisbane Times, The Age, Open Source, Sydney Morning Herald, Encore Magazine, Open Business (1), Open Business (2), Medien ABC (German), Scoop, Courier Mail, The New Zealand Open Source Society, DV Guru, etc. That you may personally choose to ignore coverage is a choice I personally do not make... nor will I participate in truly unnecessary arguments in the face of existing guide instructions. Thank you and best of luck. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, before you start to crow... the notability guide WP:BASIC is from Wikipedia:Notability (people)... but as a part of a very serious guide toward personages, it certainly can be applied to less critical topics. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This rather elitist tirade is rather inappropriate. I asked for the guideline you were referring to, and you cited WP:Notability but the statement you were talking about was in WP:Notability (people), so you can't blame me for not finding it in WP:N. I don't have any objection to the guideline, or applying it here, I just wanted to know where it was. So thank you for finally providing it. As for the whole "red link is intentionally red, sorry its lost on you", you might consider that this is confusing, to anyone who doesn't already know what you are talking about. Insert CleverPhrase Here 22:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO's WP:BASIC is a part of the parent WP:N and, in its dealing with people, is a more critical guideline. I had no intention to sound "elitist", and was simply attempting instruction that less-than-substantial sources are acceptable per notability guideline. I personally like sources that are in depth and substantial, but that wish is not the rule. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're still listing all of those sources like they're all separate, reliable sources. Let's look at all of them:

The Telegraph, Brisbane Times, The Age, and SMH are all the same source. Between them we have the one good source of the bunch.
Scoop is a press release, and does not help with notability.
MediaABC is a self-published wordpress.com blog.
Couriermail is a throwaway that says nothing about the subject other than quoting from it
DVGuru says little more than it exists.
nzoss looks like it drew directly from the press release, and one would be hard pressed to pass a blog post by an open source society as a reliable source to establish notability of an open source film, I think (but again, it looks to be a version of the press release).
this openbusiness source is a press release (note "We aim to become ..." first person)
The above use of first person without qualification casts some doubt on the reliability of the other openbusiness article, an interview, seemingly indicating some connection between openbusiness and stray cinema. In any event, openbusiness doesn't even look to say anything about itself on the websites (at least in the pages linked through the archive), and I don't know what reason we have to think it's a reliable source.
Encore is another "this thing exists" blog blip.
The Opensource.com is written by one of the people involved with Stray Cinema, Michelle Hughes.
So in that long list is one decent source. While I agree with the way you describe WP:BIO, I don't see how this comes anywhere near satisfying that set of criteria. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon but just as with suggested archive site The Wayback Machine, being archived at a site does not mean that archives of the separate reliable sources The Telegraph, Brisbane Times, The Age, and Sydney Morning Herald are somehow the "same source", nor does it denigrate everything ever archived. Archives are archives, but thank you. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who said anything at all about being archived meaning they're the same source? They're the same source because they're literally the same source. The same article published in multiple places. Allow me to quote the first paragraph from each:

Hence, same source (as it says at WP:N "It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works." — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay... so how we disregard all bad sources, and you pick your favorite one from among the four media sources that published that article authored by news stringer James Clasper, and then add it to the Inside Film article authored by Don Groves and then add the Screen Daily article authored by Jeff Cartwright, and perhaps grant that three independent sources meet WP:GNG? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt: Aside: What happened here? Why did you add Robert McClenon's name to the signature? I don't see an indication that Insertcleverphrasehere is an alternate of RM? Or is "Robert McClenon" a clever phrase? :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An unintentional error. Sorry Robert Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am definitely not an alternate for Robert McClenon. Insert CleverPhrase Here 02:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Who rang, and why? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An unintentional error. Sorry Robert Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 9 June 2016 (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.