The result was draftify. There's a consensus that the content of the article needs a lot of work to fit the tone, although the notability does not seem much in question. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
A conversation at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Community_film reinforced my concern that this is more of an academic essay than a notable encyclopedic topic. There are some mentions of the topic, but nothing that establishes its notability StarM 01:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
(1) It is not Primary (original) research; the article is almost entirely based on already published primary research, community film festivals, conferences, books, reports, academic papers, stretching back 30+ years; in support of this point there are 30+ citations. (2) It is not a Personal invention. COMMUNITY FILM does not advance any specific author or his/her interests. (3) It is not a personal essay as it does not reflect personal views of a specific individual. (4) There is no evidence of Advertising, marketing or public relations. (5) evidently community film is notable topic and term as it has been used for 30+ years. (6) It is a current topic, with 6,250 references to it on Google News (7) 1,340 books and articles discuss this topic, according to Google Scholar. (8) There is a strong link with another article: Community Media, an umbrella term for various forms of community exhibition, production, theory etc.
However, COMMUNITY FILM is clearly in need of further revision and development to take account of the most recent scholarship as mentioned on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.46.27 ( talk) 07:41, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm humbled by the insistence or suggestion that this article is an original contribution to research. (If only it were that easy in Academia). Speaking as a researcher, it strikes me that the article is highly derivative, rather like a non-critical literature review of published research.
Nonetheless, the summary and paraphrase of various academic works still sounds judicious and neutral.
In response:
I'd be honoured if I'd invented Community film in 2011, but that's not the case.
WP:NEOlogism does not apply: several contributors have pointed to the use of community film in connection with annual festivals in Canada since 1990 and the UK (2006-7), whereas various film books record articles on this topic from the 1970s. The article could be improved by referencing these
[1].
WP:SYNTHesis ??? Looks to me more like an attempt to be inclusive with a range of references, rather than relying on a single source, which would surely have been challenged as a weak foundation?
This is a positive suggestion: "If it was a more detailed description of the scope, something like
activism in filmmaking, a reader can understand that the article would address the overlap of these two scopes. I don't see a clear definition of the scope as indicated by the sources. " --- someone could work on that?
Any any rate the proposed deletion appears to have motivated various people to dig up some useful texts that I was unaware of, and surely they
[2]could provide a solid foundation for a much improved article?
Filmpartscom (
talk)
21:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Filmpartscom:: just to answer your question about Talk v Project, I think IP77 was having issues posting here, but all should be on this page. Also I just tweaked your "in reponse" so fix the alignment, the content itself is fine StarM 01:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks: StarM
Earliest notable refs [???] to Community Film, e.g. Beattie, Eleanor. The Handbook of Canadian Film (1977). Second Edition: "Teachers and librarians may find the sections "Using Films" and "Film Publications" and the bibliography most useful. In addition to the category "Film Study," the following new sections have been included in this revised second edition: "Community Film and Video,""Native People and Film,""Political and Third World Films," and "Women in Film." "
It's notable that Halleck refers to community video in the context of community access to TV and the showcasing of community film work, which is a very different angle from practical techniques for community filmmaking (pp. 104-106).
Due to the coronavirus lockdown, I'm not able currently to contribute to any significant new version of this article.
Filmpartscom (
talk)
07:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
The legal framework is also evident here: Statutory Instruments (Great Britain), H.M. Stationery Office, 1972 - Delegated legislation - 25 pages [4]
Most of the earliest refs to Community film date from the 1970s: "In the technical areas, Third World Cinema and Clif Frazier's Community Film Workshop Council were training qualified apprentices and had placed a few with local unions to work on New York films. " p.14 (Black Creation, Volumes 2-6, Institute of Afro-American Affairs at N.Y.U., 1971 -). From the same source: "THE BUS IS COMING: Independently produced community film. A black Vietnam vet comes home and finds racial turmoil brewing after the death of his brother at the hands of a racist cop." (p. 56)
And also some references from the 1940s: "Organized cooperation, at the local level, seemed the best way to begin — and the community film council was on its way. Like any genuine grass-roots movement, initial local film council leadership varied widely from community to community ..." (Saturday Review, Volume 32, 1949, United States)
"COMMUNITY FILM NEEDS AND RESOURCES • HOW TO ORGANIZE AND CONDUCT COMMUNITY FILM WORKSHOPS • HOW TO ORGANIZE A FILM FESTIVAL • HOW TO CONDUCT A COMMUNITY FILM FORUM • HOW TO ORGANIZE .." (p. 137) (School and Community, Volumes 35-36, Missouri State Teachers Association., 1949) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmpartscom ( talk • contribs) 08:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
References
In summary, considerable evidence has now been presented for the historical provenance of the page title and for its notability in terms of popular and ongoing academic currency. Narrowing the title to "activist" potentially increases confusion as it exaggerates a political angle; likewise or "filmmaking" delimits the angle of community education/distribution of film which is essential to the term's use. Finally, I'd argue that this article and its title has the same status and legitimacy as the wiki article on Community theatre, and has useful analogues with Community Media etc. It is agreed that further revision would improve the quality of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmpartscom ( talk • contribs) 12:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
The result was draftify. There's a consensus that the content of the article needs a lot of work to fit the tone, although the notability does not seem much in question. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
A conversation at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Community_film reinforced my concern that this is more of an academic essay than a notable encyclopedic topic. There are some mentions of the topic, but nothing that establishes its notability StarM 01:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
(1) It is not Primary (original) research; the article is almost entirely based on already published primary research, community film festivals, conferences, books, reports, academic papers, stretching back 30+ years; in support of this point there are 30+ citations. (2) It is not a Personal invention. COMMUNITY FILM does not advance any specific author or his/her interests. (3) It is not a personal essay as it does not reflect personal views of a specific individual. (4) There is no evidence of Advertising, marketing or public relations. (5) evidently community film is notable topic and term as it has been used for 30+ years. (6) It is a current topic, with 6,250 references to it on Google News (7) 1,340 books and articles discuss this topic, according to Google Scholar. (8) There is a strong link with another article: Community Media, an umbrella term for various forms of community exhibition, production, theory etc.
However, COMMUNITY FILM is clearly in need of further revision and development to take account of the most recent scholarship as mentioned on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.46.27 ( talk) 07:41, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm humbled by the insistence or suggestion that this article is an original contribution to research. (If only it were that easy in Academia). Speaking as a researcher, it strikes me that the article is highly derivative, rather like a non-critical literature review of published research.
Nonetheless, the summary and paraphrase of various academic works still sounds judicious and neutral.
In response:
I'd be honoured if I'd invented Community film in 2011, but that's not the case.
WP:NEOlogism does not apply: several contributors have pointed to the use of community film in connection with annual festivals in Canada since 1990 and the UK (2006-7), whereas various film books record articles on this topic from the 1970s. The article could be improved by referencing these
[1].
WP:SYNTHesis ??? Looks to me more like an attempt to be inclusive with a range of references, rather than relying on a single source, which would surely have been challenged as a weak foundation?
This is a positive suggestion: "If it was a more detailed description of the scope, something like
activism in filmmaking, a reader can understand that the article would address the overlap of these two scopes. I don't see a clear definition of the scope as indicated by the sources. " --- someone could work on that?
Any any rate the proposed deletion appears to have motivated various people to dig up some useful texts that I was unaware of, and surely they
[2]could provide a solid foundation for a much improved article?
Filmpartscom (
talk)
21:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Filmpartscom:: just to answer your question about Talk v Project, I think IP77 was having issues posting here, but all should be on this page. Also I just tweaked your "in reponse" so fix the alignment, the content itself is fine StarM 01:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks: StarM
Earliest notable refs [???] to Community Film, e.g. Beattie, Eleanor. The Handbook of Canadian Film (1977). Second Edition: "Teachers and librarians may find the sections "Using Films" and "Film Publications" and the bibliography most useful. In addition to the category "Film Study," the following new sections have been included in this revised second edition: "Community Film and Video,""Native People and Film,""Political and Third World Films," and "Women in Film." "
It's notable that Halleck refers to community video in the context of community access to TV and the showcasing of community film work, which is a very different angle from practical techniques for community filmmaking (pp. 104-106).
Due to the coronavirus lockdown, I'm not able currently to contribute to any significant new version of this article.
Filmpartscom (
talk)
07:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
The legal framework is also evident here: Statutory Instruments (Great Britain), H.M. Stationery Office, 1972 - Delegated legislation - 25 pages [4]
Most of the earliest refs to Community film date from the 1970s: "In the technical areas, Third World Cinema and Clif Frazier's Community Film Workshop Council were training qualified apprentices and had placed a few with local unions to work on New York films. " p.14 (Black Creation, Volumes 2-6, Institute of Afro-American Affairs at N.Y.U., 1971 -). From the same source: "THE BUS IS COMING: Independently produced community film. A black Vietnam vet comes home and finds racial turmoil brewing after the death of his brother at the hands of a racist cop." (p. 56)
And also some references from the 1940s: "Organized cooperation, at the local level, seemed the best way to begin — and the community film council was on its way. Like any genuine grass-roots movement, initial local film council leadership varied widely from community to community ..." (Saturday Review, Volume 32, 1949, United States)
"COMMUNITY FILM NEEDS AND RESOURCES • HOW TO ORGANIZE AND CONDUCT COMMUNITY FILM WORKSHOPS • HOW TO ORGANIZE A FILM FESTIVAL • HOW TO CONDUCT A COMMUNITY FILM FORUM • HOW TO ORGANIZE .." (p. 137) (School and Community, Volumes 35-36, Missouri State Teachers Association., 1949) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmpartscom ( talk • contribs) 08:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
References
In summary, considerable evidence has now been presented for the historical provenance of the page title and for its notability in terms of popular and ongoing academic currency. Narrowing the title to "activist" potentially increases confusion as it exaggerates a political angle; likewise or "filmmaking" delimits the angle of community education/distribution of film which is essential to the term's use. Finally, I'd argue that this article and its title has the same status and legitimacy as the wiki article on Community theatre, and has useful analogues with Community Media etc. It is agreed that further revision would improve the quality of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmpartscom ( talk • contribs) 12:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)