Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living With Fibromyalgia: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
typo
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs)
11,637,095 edits
m Fixed misnested tags and reduced Lint errors. (Task 12)
Line 23: Line 23:
***Yes, though only 125 were screened, far, far more won awards... [http://www.worldfest.org/downloads/winnerslist2008.pdf over 800 on the official list for all awards and categories]. It certainly would have been impossible to screen all the several thousands that were up for consideration. That the sheer number of submissions under consideration was so huge actually underscores both the peer notability of the festival and the individual notability of those who won out over such a tremendous competition, as only 1% of the many submissions under consideration actually won an award of any sort. The tremendous number of submissions certainly explains the number of awards... which again, only represent 1% of total submissions. It is laudable that the filmmakers are more concerned with spreading the word of the condition and helping others cope, rather than seeking headlines and press. Encyclopdedic content is not supposed to be based entirely on popularity and press hype. Would the film had gotten more popular media press had it been produced by [[Sony Pictures]], rather than by an independent filmmaker? Certainly... but then it would not have been in a competition notable to thousands of independent filmmakers. Should its having been created by an independent count as an automatic stike against it? Ideally, no. But not having a media agent acts to its perceived disadvantage.
***Yes, though only 125 were screened, far, far more won awards... [http://www.worldfest.org/downloads/winnerslist2008.pdf over 800 on the official list for all awards and categories]. It certainly would have been impossible to screen all the several thousands that were up for consideration. That the sheer number of submissions under consideration was so huge actually underscores both the peer notability of the festival and the individual notability of those who won out over such a tremendous competition, as only 1% of the many submissions under consideration actually won an award of any sort. The tremendous number of submissions certainly explains the number of awards... which again, only represent 1% of total submissions. It is laudable that the filmmakers are more concerned with spreading the word of the condition and helping others cope, rather than seeking headlines and press. Encyclopdedic content is not supposed to be based entirely on popularity and press hype. Would the film had gotten more popular media press had it been produced by [[Sony Pictures]], rather than by an independent filmmaker? Certainly... but then it would not have been in a competition notable to thousands of independent filmmakers. Should its having been created by an independent count as an automatic stike against it? Ideally, no. But not having a media agent acts to its perceived disadvantage.
***The article is encyclopedic, sourced, informative, and aids the reader in an understanding of the subject. As [[WP:N]] itself begins with "''Articles should [[WP:V|verify]] that they are notable, or "worthy of notice". It is important to note that topic notability on Wikipedia is not necessarily dependent on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic—although those may contribute''", this discussion underscores a certain weakness in [[WP:NF]], as similar discussions inevitably pare down to addressing the media coverage given by fame, importance, or popularity. It also underscores the importance of all guidelines being "best used with common sense and the occasional exception". Though the [[WP:V]]erified subject might be weak in meeting the [[WP:GNG]], the topic itself is notable to the millions suffering from [[Fibromyalgia|this ailment]] and to their families. This is a case where allowing the article to [[WP:PRESERVE|remain]] and be [[WP:POTENTIAL|improved]] [[WP:DEADLINE|over time]] serves to improve the project. [[User:MichaelQSchmidt|MichaelQSchmidt]] ([[User talk:MichaelQSchmidt|talk]]) 20:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
***The article is encyclopedic, sourced, informative, and aids the reader in an understanding of the subject. As [[WP:N]] itself begins with "''Articles should [[WP:V|verify]] that they are notable, or "worthy of notice". It is important to note that topic notability on Wikipedia is not necessarily dependent on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic—although those may contribute''", this discussion underscores a certain weakness in [[WP:NF]], as similar discussions inevitably pare down to addressing the media coverage given by fame, importance, or popularity. It also underscores the importance of all guidelines being "best used with common sense and the occasional exception". Though the [[WP:V]]erified subject might be weak in meeting the [[WP:GNG]], the topic itself is notable to the millions suffering from [[Fibromyalgia|this ailment]] and to their families. This is a case where allowing the article to [[WP:PRESERVE|remain]] and be [[WP:POTENTIAL|improved]] [[WP:DEADLINE|over time]] serves to improve the project. [[User:MichaelQSchmidt|MichaelQSchmidt]] ([[User talk:MichaelQSchmidt|talk]]) 20:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' The article is well sourced. It is clearly a notable documentary. Its ''the first feature-length film that explores the chronic pain condition known as fibromyalgia.'' [[User:Dream Focus | '''<span style="color:blue">D</span><span style="color:green">r</span><span style="color:red">e</span><span style="color:orange">a</span><span style="color:purple">m</span> <span style="color:blue">Focus</span>]]''' 23:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' The article is well sourced. It is clearly a notable documentary. Its ''the first feature-length film that explores the chronic pain condition known as fibromyalgia.'' [[User:Dream Focus | '''<span style="color:blue">D</span><span style="color:green">r</span><span style="color:red">e</span><span style="color:orange">a</span><span style="color:purple">m</span> <span style="color:blue">Focus</span>''']] 23:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
*'''Delete''': We need signs that independent reliable sources have noticed this film more than the many thousands made each year. I don't agree that the prizes/awards reported are sufficient indication of this. I actually find it striking that given the "popularity" of the subject matter and that it was released 2 years ago, that the film apparently hasn't received any coverage in books, news media and scholarly journals on the subject (based on googlesearches etc) . I don't doubt that it is a helpful film to many. That doesn't mean we need or want an article on the subject.--[[User:Slp1|Slp1]] ([[User talk:Slp1|talk]]) 12:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
*'''Delete''': We need signs that independent reliable sources have noticed this film more than the many thousands made each year. I don't agree that the prizes/awards reported are sufficient indication of this. I actually find it striking that given the "popularity" of the subject matter and that it was released 2 years ago, that the film apparently hasn't received any coverage in books, news media and scholarly journals on the subject (based on googlesearches etc) . I don't doubt that it is a helpful film to many. That doesn't mean we need or want an article on the subject.--[[User:Slp1|Slp1]] ([[User talk:Slp1|talk]]) 12:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
:"We" may not, but that doesn't mean to say Joe Public doesn't. Also take into account that a film like this won't have the marketing budget of even low budget Hollywood films. Also the fact that it is the first and only film of its type means that it is notable in its own right. There's a good argument for applying [[WP:IAR]] and [[WP:PAPER]] in this instance because it falls between the gaps with regard to [[WP:NF]] and various other usual conventions. Also please don't forget that just isn't a 'film' ''per se'', it's a documentary. --'''[[User:WebHamster|<font color="#000000">Web</font>]][[User Talk:WebHamster|<font color="#ff0000">H</font><font color="#000000">amster</font>]]''' 13:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
:"We" may not, but that doesn't mean to say Joe Public doesn't. Also take into account that a film like this won't have the marketing budget of even low budget Hollywood films. Also the fact that it is the first and only film of its type means that it is notable in its own right. There's a good argument for applying [[WP:IAR]] and [[WP:PAPER]] in this instance because it falls between the gaps with regard to [[WP:NF]] and various other usual conventions. Also please don't forget that just isn't a 'film' ''per se'', it's a documentary. --'''[[User:WebHamster|<font color="#000000">Web</font>]][[User Talk:WebHamster|<font color="#ff0000">H</font><font color="#000000">amster</font>]]''' 13:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:34, 29 January 2022

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. Sufficent time has passed and positive arguments made on both sides of the debate have come forward. With no-one advocating that the content could live within another article there is no consensus to delete - no consensus leads us to a default keep accordingly. Pedro :  Chat  10:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Living With Fibromyalgia

Living With Fibromyalgia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

WP:NF no RS for this film, only reference is dead link and i can not find any independent sources. I think it is advertisement for a film selling on Amazon but it is not reviewed in any RS. RetroS1mone talk 04:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Fails WP:NF. Blogs aren't reliable sources and you can find mention of anything somewhere in a blog. BigDunc 20:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • STRONG Keep Award-winning docmentary film, and first feature-length of its kind, with sourcing available that are not blogs. And of all the minutae (sorry) that quite often finds its way into these pages through the "notability" of headline and hype, this article truly serves to improve the project and inform readers about a notable subject that impinges on many lives. Not to spout WP:WAX, but an encyclopedia that has articles on consumer fast foods should gladly encourage inclusion of such encyclopedic articles that serve the world community as a whole. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It as an award winner. Passes WP:NF. Iowateen (talk) 14:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Checked out the award it has won it appears very few of the films that win at this awards have articles nevertheless change my vote. BigDunc 14:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment, that is probaly BC the Houston International Film Festival has ~ 200 award categories, it gave 872 awards in 2008, top to bottom Grand Award, Special Jury Award, Platinum Remi, Gold Remi, Silver Remi, Bronze Remi. 2008, it was 9 Grand Awards, top prize, 67 Special Jury Awards, and 199 Platinum Remis. There are 3 Documentary categories and 7 documentaries got Special Jury award and 7 got platinum Remis. This film was one from 3 films that got a platinum Remi in it's documentary catagory, after two that got Special Jury Award. So this film, at one independent film festival was in the top 14 documentaries and top 275 awards. RetroS1mone talk 02:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "as one of 23 documentaries to receive awards at the festival." & a minor festival at that. Retrosimone is rightthat this is not a significant award, and there are no other indicationjs of notability.DGG (talk) 04:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • With over 4500 entries in multiple catagories. Award-winning documentaries accounted for only .05% of the total and Plantinum Remi (1st place) winning documentaries accounted for only .01% of the total. Must have been something special about them. the WorldFest-Houston International Film Festival is a notable festival that has been around since 1961 and now gearing up for its 43rd such event. Wikipedia does not mandate that a film festival be popularity-driven like the Grammy's or Oscars in order to be notable. This festival's notability is found by multiple in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources for over 3 decades. With respects, since WP:NF specifically states "standards have not yet been established to define a major award", I am happy to not infer something guideline does not mandate and so can accept that this honor by that festival is indicative of the film's notability and the value of the article in improving Wikipedia and informing readers. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was ~ 125 feature films and shorts screening at 2008 festival, 4500 was total all applications, films, TV shows, commercials, music videos, how to videos, student videos, some got selecting for screening at festival. Platinum Remi is top award in catagory, festival has higher awards Grand Prize and Special Jury Award, there was 76 from them in 2008. It was 200 catagories at festival, some get more then one Platinum. Also when every 125 film or short was documentary, 14 documentaries got Platinum or higher, above 10% of films, but many film or short kinds at festival. When 23 documentaries get awards from 125 films, is there a documentary did NOT get an award, i am wondering?? Awards dilute so much, it does not mean any thing, my opinion, for "secondary" award criteria, wp:nf, when there is not rs for film. RetroS1mone talk 12:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, though only 125 were screened, far, far more won awards... over 800 on the official list for all awards and categories. It certainly would have been impossible to screen all the several thousands that were up for consideration. That the sheer number of submissions under consideration was so huge actually underscores both the peer notability of the festival and the individual notability of those who won out over such a tremendous competition, as only 1% of the many submissions under consideration actually won an award of any sort. The tremendous number of submissions certainly explains the number of awards... which again, only represent 1% of total submissions. It is laudable that the filmmakers are more concerned with spreading the word of the condition and helping others cope, rather than seeking headlines and press. Encyclopdedic content is not supposed to be based entirely on popularity and press hype. Would the film had gotten more popular media press had it been produced by Sony Pictures, rather than by an independent filmmaker? Certainly... but then it would not have been in a competition notable to thousands of independent filmmakers. Should its having been created by an independent count as an automatic stike against it? Ideally, no. But not having a media agent acts to its perceived disadvantage.
      • The article is encyclopedic, sourced, informative, and aids the reader in an understanding of the subject. As WP:N itself begins with "Articles should verify that they are notable, or "worthy of notice". It is important to note that topic notability on Wikipedia is not necessarily dependent on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic—although those may contribute", this discussion underscores a certain weakness in WP:NF, as similar discussions inevitably pare down to addressing the media coverage given by fame, importance, or popularity. It also underscores the importance of all guidelines being "best used with common sense and the occasional exception". Though the WP:Verified subject might be weak in meeting the WP:GNG, the topic itself is notable to the millions suffering from this ailment and to their families. This is a case where allowing the article to remain and be improved over time serves to improve the project. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is well sourced. It is clearly a notable documentary. Its the first feature-length film that explores the chronic pain condition known as fibromyalgia. Dream Focus 23:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: We need signs that independent reliable sources have noticed this film more than the many thousands made each year. I don't agree that the prizes/awards reported are sufficient indication of this. I actually find it striking that given the "popularity" of the subject matter and that it was released 2 years ago, that the film apparently hasn't received any coverage in books, news media and scholarly journals on the subject (based on googlesearches etc) . I don't doubt that it is a helpful film to many. That doesn't mean we need or want an article on the subject.--Slp1 (talk) 12:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"We" may not, but that doesn't mean to say Joe Public doesn't. Also take into account that a film like this won't have the marketing budget of even low budget Hollywood films. Also the fact that it is the first and only film of its type means that it is notable in its own right. There's a good argument for applying WP:IAR and WP:PAPER in this instance because it falls between the gaps with regard to WP:NF and various other usual conventions. Also please don't forget that just isn't a 'film' per se, it's a documentary. --WebHamster 13:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with Slp1's comments... This film (or documentary if you prefer) just does not rise to the level of being notable. We need to have some indication that it is concidered notable by the general public... people beyond the narrow confines of those who care about Fibromyalgia. I could see mentioning the film in the main Fibromyalgia article (or at least mention it as a reference in that article), but I don't think it rates an article on its own. Blueboar (talk) 13:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spam for nonnotable film, with completely nonnotable award (these days any independent film is virtually guaranteed of getting some award from some awardfarming service -- think it's contractual for some of these festivals) and no independent sources showing anything like notability for a Wikipedia article. Ridiculous. DreamGuy (talk) 16:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The award confers enough notability, and the article contains enough RSs for WP:V. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on verifiable sources and award. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets film notability criteria: received Platinum Remi award and was screened at Houston International Film Festival. Brandt 19:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Do you guys realize that in 2008 for example, the festival awarded out nearly 200 Platinum Remis? [1]--Slp1 (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was spoken of above at length. Of the 4500 entries in various categories, and the numrous awards in various categories, only 7 Plantinum Remies went to documentaries. Kinda puts it in the top of its class, as competition must have been fierce. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Every year, all over the world, there are many, many international film festivals. At each one, year after year, many, many awards are given out. Does that mean that every single one can be considered to have won "major award for excellence" ([per NF)? Does WP need or want articles on every single one? I don't think so. Most especially, as, apart from this award, precisely zero independent reliable sources outside a very small number of (not the greatest) sources from the Fibromyalgia world/employers of the filmmakers/calendar announcement, have noticed the film in any way. --Slp1 (talk) 23:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is about a specific film and a specific festival, not every single film that ever won an award anywhere. WP:NF lists some major awards, but specifically states that "standards have not yet been established to define a major award". In this specific instance, we consider this specific film. The criteria at WP:NF IS "The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking"... so if the festival is notable per WP:GNG (and it well is), a first place award at that notable festival would apply, and be in context with the film type and festival type. This is not a publicist-hyped multi-starred boxoffice blockbuster created and promoted by a major studio. It will never play at your local cinemaplex... but guideline accepts that. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We are not paper provided that notability is ok. This is the case I think, but the topic is quite unpleasant. Brandt 19:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I'm always a bit cautious when WP:IAR (above) and WP:PAPER are cited; Irrelevantly, I wonder why would you say the topic is "unpleasant"? I can think of way more unpleasant medical topics than this!!!--Slp1 (talk) 23:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Competition was not "fierce" i think, there was 125 films screened at festival, not all was documenteries, and 23 documentaries got awards. 7 documenteries got Platinum Remi, 3 in the same catagory with this film, and 7 docu got a higher award then Platinum, the Special Jury Award. Platinum is a catagory award, Special Jury is a festival award. How many docu was there in the 125 films, i am wondering, does any body want a bet, all documentaries got awards? RetroS1mone talk 02:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With respects, you're repeating what was discussed above. The festival received over 4,500 entries in multiple categories. The Platinum Remi Award is a jury award given to the 1st place winner in each category. That the documentary won 1st place in its category is no less notable simply because there were other winners in other categories. It was a huge field after all, and not all the 4500 entires won awards or were screened. Please, and since this has been discussed in depth above, is it really neccessary to repeat ourselves? On a side notem thank you for the assist on my new aricle on the National Fibromyalgia Association. I appreciate your help. Best, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
how can it necessarily be the first place if it was one of 7? I suppose you mean as a subclass of documentaries? Divide anything into enough classes and quite a lot will be first in its class. That's the normal way festivals are able to give multiple impressive sounding awards--its a publicity trick. DGG (talk) 03:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There were 7 winners in this film's categories. As I do not know any festival that lists the losers, I cannot find out how many were in total competition for this category. Receiving one of 3 Platinum Remi winners might lose persective, but the win surpasses the Gold, Silver, and Bronze Remis awarded in this category. Does a 3-way tie for the Platinum diminish its worth? Does sharing an Oscar diminish it's worth?
Worldfest's entry fees range from $45 to $90+ and more (dependent on film length and time of entry), so I'm sure it was profit that had them accept submissions from 4500 films... knowing that only 2% would be winning prizes and that they could only screen 125 of the 800 winners. But heck, even the Academy Awards are done-for-profit, so making money is not a strike. Personally, I think they are getting too big for themselves. Despite this, Worldfest is one of the grails for independent fimmakers... and every one of that 4500 entered into competition hoping they would win. On their website, they explain that "WorldFest is 12 Major film & video competitions in one event, unlike Cannes, Sundance and Toronto, which are just 2 competitions for shorts and features only. Because of our 12 major competitions and the 200+ sub-categories, WorldFest does give a lot of awards, but they are both earned and deserved. No awards are given in any category unless the scores from the juries are high enough to place for honors."
True or not, trick or not, that credo has garnered the festival the notability required by guideline... as The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. We may be volunteers here, but festivals exist in the real world... one where Bigger, Better, Faster, Newer, Tastier, Smarter, Prettier are all used as hyperbole to sell a product. It is that hype and that press that guarantees article notability for any low-quality fast food with a clown or king mascot.
However, I will be glad to take part in those future and inevitable Wikipedia discussions that attempt to finally determine what constitutes a major award. Until that is decided, all I can go on is common sense and guideline. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the time for this to get closed but IMO it would be no consensus so default to keep. BigDunc 09:15, 21 July 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/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Living_With_Fibromyalgia&oldid=1068566028"