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. The early "delete" opinions were given before sources were provided in this discussion. Sandstein 20:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)reply
No evidence of notability or particularly wide distribution. A smattering of what appear to be blog articles are the primary sources. Some
WP:FRINGE issues, given the film's advocacy for
Orthomolecular medicine, though, were it notable, that could likely be dealt with - the lack of notability moves this into delete. Does not even come close to the
film notability standards. Adam Cuerden(
talk) 19:23, 24 December 2015 (UTC)reply
delete based on reviews of dubious expertise. - üser:Altenmann
>t 21:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete: per nom, this article is reaching far for notability.
Delta13C (
talk) 21:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)reply
See
WP:NEXIST. Topic notability is based on available sources, not sourcing in articles. North America1000 02:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete, non-notable promotional faux-documentary. Guy (
Help!) 12:24, 25 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. Wikipedia is
WP:NOT bollocks.
Alexbrn (
talk) 15:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. No evidence of notability. --
Guy Macon (
talk) 22:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. "has just cracked 100,000 sales and is now airing in more than 30 countries." "has been shown on French channel Canal Plus, after being dubbed into French for broadcast through 27 countries, as well as the Noga TV network in Israel." "It will premiere on the Rialto Channel in New Zealand next month and has also been included on the in-flight entertainment schedule on Singapore Airlines and Air New Zealand flights." All from "Doco dishes up success", Sunshine Coast Daily, 19 January 2010. Croot, James (4 October 2008), "Wake-up call on food quality", The Press (Christchurch) is a good source.
This provides more coverage. The maker website's
press and media indicates others that could be usable. Gets enough for
WP:GNG.
Note that above delete comments are mostly
WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE so should be discounted. Nomination is based on the current state of the article and not on available sources so doesn't hold much water. Not have addressed any of the sources presented during the last afd.
duffbeerforme (
talk) 11:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure I agree. This is a collection of marginal sources. The Australian Business Review is less about the film and more about whether you can make money off such films. The Sunday Star Times one has a contest in it, indicating a press release/marketing stunt being behind it. The Canada.com is of dubious sourcing; appears to be a blog-like column stolen from a regional newspaper (I think maybe the
Montreal Gazette?) They just don't amount to evidence of notability. Adam Cuerden(
talk) 04:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Stolen? Don't know where that comes from, both Canada.com and Montreal Gazette are
Postmedia Network publications. Even if you are dubious about the "blog-like" link presented it doesn't matter that much, It originally appear in the Gazette newspaper itself (19 September 2008, section Arts & Life: Movies, page D1). That is a reliable source.
duffbeerforme (
talk) 04:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)reply
And how about Sunshine Coast Daily and The Press (Christchurch). And the ones indicated on the makers website?
duffbeerforme (
talk) 04:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Natg 19 (
talk) 01:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete for failing
WP:NFSOURCES. Doesn't meet other criteria for notability such as "...widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.."
BlueRiband► 18:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Noted this deletion discussion on a noticeboard dedicated to such things. This is canvassing now? Adam Cuerden(
talk) 00:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Weak keep in light of sources from
User:duffbeerforme and the following:
[1],
[2],
[3]. As always, the pseudoscience needs to be named as pseudoscience, but deleting the article isn't a good alternative to refuting the film's questionable claims. --
Sammy1339 (
talk) 18:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep and immediately add all of duffbeerforme's sources as inline citations to the article. It seems the problem with the article was in not providing proper sourcing rather than demonstrating that no such sourcing exists. To that extent this is a very good outcome of this AfD, in that it should spur real improvement to a Wikipedia article. -
Markeer 15:56, 8 January 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.
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. The early "delete" opinions were given before sources were provided in this discussion. Sandstein 20:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)reply
No evidence of notability or particularly wide distribution. A smattering of what appear to be blog articles are the primary sources. Some
WP:FRINGE issues, given the film's advocacy for
Orthomolecular medicine, though, were it notable, that could likely be dealt with - the lack of notability moves this into delete. Does not even come close to the
film notability standards. Adam Cuerden(
talk) 19:23, 24 December 2015 (UTC)reply
delete based on reviews of dubious expertise. - üser:Altenmann
>t 21:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete: per nom, this article is reaching far for notability.
Delta13C (
talk) 21:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)reply
See
WP:NEXIST. Topic notability is based on available sources, not sourcing in articles. North America1000 02:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete, non-notable promotional faux-documentary. Guy (
Help!) 12:24, 25 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. Wikipedia is
WP:NOT bollocks.
Alexbrn (
talk) 15:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. No evidence of notability. --
Guy Macon (
talk) 22:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. "has just cracked 100,000 sales and is now airing in more than 30 countries." "has been shown on French channel Canal Plus, after being dubbed into French for broadcast through 27 countries, as well as the Noga TV network in Israel." "It will premiere on the Rialto Channel in New Zealand next month and has also been included on the in-flight entertainment schedule on Singapore Airlines and Air New Zealand flights." All from "Doco dishes up success", Sunshine Coast Daily, 19 January 2010. Croot, James (4 October 2008), "Wake-up call on food quality", The Press (Christchurch) is a good source.
This provides more coverage. The maker website's
press and media indicates others that could be usable. Gets enough for
WP:GNG.
Note that above delete comments are mostly
WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE so should be discounted. Nomination is based on the current state of the article and not on available sources so doesn't hold much water. Not have addressed any of the sources presented during the last afd.
duffbeerforme (
talk) 11:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure I agree. This is a collection of marginal sources. The Australian Business Review is less about the film and more about whether you can make money off such films. The Sunday Star Times one has a contest in it, indicating a press release/marketing stunt being behind it. The Canada.com is of dubious sourcing; appears to be a blog-like column stolen from a regional newspaper (I think maybe the
Montreal Gazette?) They just don't amount to evidence of notability. Adam Cuerden(
talk) 04:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Stolen? Don't know where that comes from, both Canada.com and Montreal Gazette are
Postmedia Network publications. Even if you are dubious about the "blog-like" link presented it doesn't matter that much, It originally appear in the Gazette newspaper itself (19 September 2008, section Arts & Life: Movies, page D1). That is a reliable source.
duffbeerforme (
talk) 04:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)reply
And how about Sunshine Coast Daily and The Press (Christchurch). And the ones indicated on the makers website?
duffbeerforme (
talk) 04:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Natg 19 (
talk) 01:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete for failing
WP:NFSOURCES. Doesn't meet other criteria for notability such as "...widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.."
BlueRiband► 18:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Noted this deletion discussion on a noticeboard dedicated to such things. This is canvassing now? Adam Cuerden(
talk) 00:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Weak keep in light of sources from
User:duffbeerforme and the following:
[1],
[2],
[3]. As always, the pseudoscience needs to be named as pseudoscience, but deleting the article isn't a good alternative to refuting the film's questionable claims. --
Sammy1339 (
talk) 18:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep and immediately add all of duffbeerforme's sources as inline citations to the article. It seems the problem with the article was in not providing proper sourcing rather than demonstrating that no such sourcing exists. To that extent this is a very good outcome of this AfD, in that it should spur real improvement to a Wikipedia article. -
Markeer 15:56, 8 January 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.