- 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 delete. The arguments by the delete voters are substantially more convincing than the others. MQS comments that it meets WP:NF with no discussion of why or how. Tokyogirl79 and Frmorrison reference the single major review that the film received, but another editor reminds us that WP:NFILM requires full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. Consensus is that the film is not notable, however there does appear to be some agreement that the organization by the same name might meet our notability guidelines. ‑Scottywong | gab _ 01:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Living Hope
- Living Hope ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I don't find evidence that this film has achieved note as called for under WP:NFILM. The third-party references that mention Living Hope refer to the ministry by the name "Living Hope" that the film is about but not to the film. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 16:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- Film:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Director:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Topic(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Compnay:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Weak keep per just meeting WP:NF for a secular documentary. Schmidt, Michael Q. 00:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk) 01:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- Can you clarify? I don't see any notes particularly pertinent to documentaries, secular or otherwise, in WP:NF, except in the non-germane criterion "The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema." Also, what's secular about this church-oriented documentary? —Largo Plazo ( talk) 02:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- Notes? Documentaries are covered under WP:NF and not some separate guideline. My thought using common sense is that small budget, independent documentary films do not get the same level of coverage as their bigger, better funded, big studio produced brethren. Thus, when looking for sources, we do not have a realistic expectation of such being covered in New York Times or Variety. Being a Christian-related film, we would expect Christian-related coverage... coverage independent from the production itself but reliable enough for what is being sourced. I did not refer to the "other attributes to consider", and my "weak keep" is based upon that coverage being just barely enough to meet WP:NF. Not excessive, no... but non non-existent either. Just barely enough. And I chose "secular" as a descriptive because the film's story is associated with a Christian ministry but does not preach that faith's religious message. If I am mis-using that term, then excuse me. Schmidt, Michael Q. 05:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- Of course I realize documentaries are covered under WP:NF. It's that instead of merely writing "just meeting WP:NF", you wrote "just meeting WP:NF for a secular documentary", as though you would have reached a different conclusion if it were a different kind of film. This led me to think you'd found something in WP:NF that gives additional leeway for secular documentaries.
- As for "small budget, independent documentary films do not get the same level of coverage", isn't that sort of the same thing as saying that small budget, independent documentary films are less likely to meet
WP:NF? In the same way that local garage bands are less likely to meet the guidelines under
WP:BAND—we don't lower the bar for them, we delete them routinely—and not only do we delete them, but when it comes to bands we even delete them speedily. I haven't before come across the idea that we lower the bar for subjects that because of some characteristic are less likely to meet
WP:N or one of its offspring than other subjects of the same type (in this case, a film) but without that characteristic (in this case, being a small, independent documentary).
—Largo Plazo (
talk) 10:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- I am not speaking about the topic of neighborhood bands, just about a low-budget independent film that has just enough coverage to meet the intent and purpose of WP:NF. I am not "lowering the bar", but in considering the topic I am not holding it ridiculous heights either. Indeed, there are hundreds or thousands of indie docs that do not come even this close. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Schmidt, Michael Q. 11:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- I know you weren't speaking of neighborhood bands. The nature of an analogy is to compare something that is the topic of discussion to something else.
Anyway, can you please provide examples of this coverage? As I said in my nomination, I'm not finding it. TokyoGirl has provided just one example.—Largo Plazo ( talk) 12:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- I know you weren't speaking of neighborhood bands. The nature of an analogy is to compare something that is the topic of discussion to something else.
- Comment. I'm leaning towards a weak keep as well. I've found a review by the Dove Foundation and while the coverage here is very, very light it's enough that so far I'm leaning towards a weak keep as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey2010 • (talk) 10:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep It has a notable review. Frmorrison ( talk) 14:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- The review-based criterion from WP:NFILM is that "The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics."
- Delete: Copying my comment from the article's talk page: "[...] after excluding the results that were obviously connected to the ministry or the production company, it seems to me that the ministry Living Hope is borderline notable and sufficiently covered; the film Living Hope is much less so. More should be included in this article about the ministry, as it seems unlikely that the film achieves notability on its own." That comment was from just before the film was released, as I recall, but the article wasn't nominated for deletion at the time. I think that this could be an article on the ministry which mentions the video, but I don't think that the film itself satisfies WP:NFILM at this time. I'd expect a notable film with a Christian subject (secular or otherwise) to be well-covered by Christian media, and notwithstanding the one major review this film hasn't achieved that coverage. Ivanvector ( talk) 16:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- I was thinking that myself—the ministry might merit an article—and, of course, it could be mentioned in that article that this film had been made about it. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 13:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete- upon review this film fails WP:NFILM and fails WP:Notability all at the same time. I agree with Ivanvector that the film would at least have major coverage from the Christian market but has very little to none. Delete away!-- Canyouhearmenow 12:40, 2 August 2014 (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 delete. The arguments by the delete voters are substantially more convincing than the others. MQS comments that it meets WP:NF with no discussion of why or how. Tokyogirl79 and Frmorrison reference the single major review that the film received, but another editor reminds us that WP:NFILM requires full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. Consensus is that the film is not notable, however there does appear to be some agreement that the organization by the same name might meet our notability guidelines. ‑Scottywong | gab _ 01:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Living Hope
- Living Hope ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I don't find evidence that this film has achieved note as called for under WP:NFILM. The third-party references that mention Living Hope refer to the ministry by the name "Living Hope" that the film is about but not to the film. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 16:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- Film:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Director:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Topic(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Compnay:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Weak keep per just meeting WP:NF for a secular documentary. Schmidt, Michael Q. 00:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk) 01:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- Can you clarify? I don't see any notes particularly pertinent to documentaries, secular or otherwise, in WP:NF, except in the non-germane criterion "The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema." Also, what's secular about this church-oriented documentary? —Largo Plazo ( talk) 02:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- Notes? Documentaries are covered under WP:NF and not some separate guideline. My thought using common sense is that small budget, independent documentary films do not get the same level of coverage as their bigger, better funded, big studio produced brethren. Thus, when looking for sources, we do not have a realistic expectation of such being covered in New York Times or Variety. Being a Christian-related film, we would expect Christian-related coverage... coverage independent from the production itself but reliable enough for what is being sourced. I did not refer to the "other attributes to consider", and my "weak keep" is based upon that coverage being just barely enough to meet WP:NF. Not excessive, no... but non non-existent either. Just barely enough. And I chose "secular" as a descriptive because the film's story is associated with a Christian ministry but does not preach that faith's religious message. If I am mis-using that term, then excuse me. Schmidt, Michael Q. 05:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- Of course I realize documentaries are covered under WP:NF. It's that instead of merely writing "just meeting WP:NF", you wrote "just meeting WP:NF for a secular documentary", as though you would have reached a different conclusion if it were a different kind of film. This led me to think you'd found something in WP:NF that gives additional leeway for secular documentaries.
- As for "small budget, independent documentary films do not get the same level of coverage", isn't that sort of the same thing as saying that small budget, independent documentary films are less likely to meet
WP:NF? In the same way that local garage bands are less likely to meet the guidelines under
WP:BAND—we don't lower the bar for them, we delete them routinely—and not only do we delete them, but when it comes to bands we even delete them speedily. I haven't before come across the idea that we lower the bar for subjects that because of some characteristic are less likely to meet
WP:N or one of its offspring than other subjects of the same type (in this case, a film) but without that characteristic (in this case, being a small, independent documentary).
—Largo Plazo (
talk) 10:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- I am not speaking about the topic of neighborhood bands, just about a low-budget independent film that has just enough coverage to meet the intent and purpose of WP:NF. I am not "lowering the bar", but in considering the topic I am not holding it ridiculous heights either. Indeed, there are hundreds or thousands of indie docs that do not come even this close. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Schmidt, Michael Q. 11:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- I know you weren't speaking of neighborhood bands. The nature of an analogy is to compare something that is the topic of discussion to something else.
Anyway, can you please provide examples of this coverage? As I said in my nomination, I'm not finding it. TokyoGirl has provided just one example.—Largo Plazo ( talk) 12:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- I know you weren't speaking of neighborhood bands. The nature of an analogy is to compare something that is the topic of discussion to something else.
- Comment. I'm leaning towards a weak keep as well. I've found a review by the Dove Foundation and while the coverage here is very, very light it's enough that so far I'm leaning towards a weak keep as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey2010 • (talk) 10:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep It has a notable review. Frmorrison ( talk) 14:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- The review-based criterion from WP:NFILM is that "The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics."
- Delete: Copying my comment from the article's talk page: "[...] after excluding the results that were obviously connected to the ministry or the production company, it seems to me that the ministry Living Hope is borderline notable and sufficiently covered; the film Living Hope is much less so. More should be included in this article about the ministry, as it seems unlikely that the film achieves notability on its own." That comment was from just before the film was released, as I recall, but the article wasn't nominated for deletion at the time. I think that this could be an article on the ministry which mentions the video, but I don't think that the film itself satisfies WP:NFILM at this time. I'd expect a notable film with a Christian subject (secular or otherwise) to be well-covered by Christian media, and notwithstanding the one major review this film hasn't achieved that coverage. Ivanvector ( talk) 16:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- I was thinking that myself—the ministry might merit an article—and, of course, it could be mentioned in that article that this film had been made about it. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 13:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete- upon review this film fails WP:NFILM and fails WP:Notability all at the same time. I agree with Ivanvector that the film would at least have major coverage from the Christian market but has very little to none. Delete away!-- Canyouhearmenow 12:40, 2 August 2014 (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.