- 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. (non-admin closure) Szzuk ( talk) 07:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Autism Is a World
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Autism Is a World ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Most sources are about Sue Rubin, not the movie. The movie doesn't have much notability. Ylevental ( talk) 13:24, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Delete agree with nom. Fails notability. MaskedSinger ( talk) 20:44, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Note: Ylevental has already attempted to get the German version of this article deleted - two times yesterday. Seems like some kind of personal vendetta against the movie / Sue Rubin. I'm not familiar with your criteria for movies, but in de:wp we consider an oscar-nomination as indicator for relevance. -- Johannnes89 ( talk) 23:11, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Keep because of nomination for the category Best Documentary (Short Subject) of the 77th Academy Awards in 2005. The film was released on DVD in 2005. -- H do it again ( talk) 23:24, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment @ Johannnes89: @ H do it again: On the English Wikipedia, a film must receive significant coverage in multiple articles for it to be notable. The articles must cover the actual film in detail. More details are at Wikipedia:Notability (films). I just assumed that the same criteria applied to all language Wikipedias, and was surprised when it was delisted from deletion because it didn't even have any sources. Simply being nominated without any coverage wouldn't count. I considered it for deletion after the Sue Rubin article was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sue Rubin, since the sources it was based on claimed that Facilitated Communication is legitimate, when it has been scientifically debunked. Ylevental ( talk) 00:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Oscar nominee regular get significant coverage, in part automatic by the nomination alone. Here we have on top the controversy about the film. (But I agree, hat part belongs into the article.) The deletion of Sue Rubin is a completely different issue. A movie is not a person, even if the movie is about the person. Fano ( talk) 01:38, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- Keep - even though the article could be extended, the movie got significant media coverage therefore notability is given -- Johannnes89 ( talk) 07:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I just found a third reliable source. It was hard to find, but I guess the article is staying, unless someone can prove otherwise. Ylevental ( talk) 10:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- Keep per Oscar nomination, and above related discussion to that. matt91486 ( talk) 18:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- Keep - I feel it has sufficient coverage, and the user proposing the deletion has a apparent bias around Autism related articles. - Nolan Perry Yell at me! 04:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- Keep as the film has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as The New York Times, LA Times and Washington Post here so it passes WP:GNG and should be kept particularly as there is enough criticism in rs to address fringe theory issues, thanks Atlantic306 ( talk)
- Comment Obviously, the article should be kept, but I removed all sources which were mostly about claiming that Sue Rubin is definitely communicating through facilitated communication, as FC is completely debunked. Ylevental ( talk) 23:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Keep I'm not sure the removal of the sources based on facilitated communication as discussed above was appropriate or not, but it seems to me that should be discussed on the article's talk page, not the AFD. Regardless, though, between the Oscar nomination and the sources already cited on this page, plus the fact that it appears there are several other reliable sources out there that have yet to be added to the article, I believe this one is a clear Keep. — Hun ter Ka hn 04:35, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
- Keep The Oscar nom on its own makes it a notable work. Care should be taken that Wikipedia's voice isn't used to validate the fringe pseudo-medicine narrative presented in the film and used to promote the film. ApLundell ( talk) 17:40, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. (non-admin closure) Szzuk ( talk) 07:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Autism Is a World
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Autism Is a World ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Most sources are about Sue Rubin, not the movie. The movie doesn't have much notability. Ylevental ( talk) 13:24, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Delete agree with nom. Fails notability. MaskedSinger ( talk) 20:44, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Note: Ylevental has already attempted to get the German version of this article deleted - two times yesterday. Seems like some kind of personal vendetta against the movie / Sue Rubin. I'm not familiar with your criteria for movies, but in de:wp we consider an oscar-nomination as indicator for relevance. -- Johannnes89 ( talk) 23:11, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Keep because of nomination for the category Best Documentary (Short Subject) of the 77th Academy Awards in 2005. The film was released on DVD in 2005. -- H do it again ( talk) 23:24, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment @ Johannnes89: @ H do it again: On the English Wikipedia, a film must receive significant coverage in multiple articles for it to be notable. The articles must cover the actual film in detail. More details are at Wikipedia:Notability (films). I just assumed that the same criteria applied to all language Wikipedias, and was surprised when it was delisted from deletion because it didn't even have any sources. Simply being nominated without any coverage wouldn't count. I considered it for deletion after the Sue Rubin article was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sue Rubin, since the sources it was based on claimed that Facilitated Communication is legitimate, when it has been scientifically debunked. Ylevental ( talk) 00:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Oscar nominee regular get significant coverage, in part automatic by the nomination alone. Here we have on top the controversy about the film. (But I agree, hat part belongs into the article.) The deletion of Sue Rubin is a completely different issue. A movie is not a person, even if the movie is about the person. Fano ( talk) 01:38, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- Keep - even though the article could be extended, the movie got significant media coverage therefore notability is given -- Johannnes89 ( talk) 07:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I just found a third reliable source. It was hard to find, but I guess the article is staying, unless someone can prove otherwise. Ylevental ( talk) 10:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- Keep per Oscar nomination, and above related discussion to that. matt91486 ( talk) 18:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- Keep - I feel it has sufficient coverage, and the user proposing the deletion has a apparent bias around Autism related articles. - Nolan Perry Yell at me! 04:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- Keep as the film has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as The New York Times, LA Times and Washington Post here so it passes WP:GNG and should be kept particularly as there is enough criticism in rs to address fringe theory issues, thanks Atlantic306 ( talk)
- Comment Obviously, the article should be kept, but I removed all sources which were mostly about claiming that Sue Rubin is definitely communicating through facilitated communication, as FC is completely debunked. Ylevental ( talk) 23:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Keep I'm not sure the removal of the sources based on facilitated communication as discussed above was appropriate or not, but it seems to me that should be discussed on the article's talk page, not the AFD. Regardless, though, between the Oscar nomination and the sources already cited on this page, plus the fact that it appears there are several other reliable sources out there that have yet to be added to the article, I believe this one is a clear Keep. — Hun ter Ka hn 04:35, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
- Keep The Oscar nom on its own makes it a notable work. Care should be taken that Wikipedia's voice isn't used to validate the fringe pseudo-medicine narrative presented in the film and used to promote the film. ApLundell ( talk) 17:40, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
- 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.