- 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. Randykitty (talk) 10:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Facing Goliath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about a television documentary, not properly referenced as having any notability claim that would pass WP:NFILM. As always, every film is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because IMDb offers technical verification that it exists -- but there's no notability claim here beyond the fact that it exists, and the only reference present besides the IMDb profile is a deadlinked TV Guide listing. That's not enough to make a film notable. Bearcat (talk) 05:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Delete Fails NFilm. I cannot find any independent, reliable references besides IMDB and it seems to have been made by an SPA. While the article seems to attempt to pass the criteria of "The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics" there is no credible claim to this that I can find. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 06:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Delete Agree, fails NFilm - can't find any reviews in any independent RS. GirthSummit (blether) 07:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Don't Delete Facing Goliath was aired internationally, in 116 countries, via Al Jazeera's program, titled "Witness" and is also widely available online. It was also listed on links to TV guide boards, back dated to the date of airing. These sights have not maintained old programming schedules and the links have gone dead, but it does not change the fact that the film had an international television audience. It does not make sense that the loss of programming links could invalidate the listing of the film here. Links were placed here over a decade ago to prove these points and some of them still point to the films validity on IMDB. Are films invalidated any time a long standing link to a program board goes dead, even when the film is still n wide circulation on the web? The loss of those links shouldn't alter the 10 year history of this entry. The listing is still valid. Abandond (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- Abandond Please take a look at WP:NFILM. Criterion 1 requires that the film was widely distributed, and that it has received full-length reviews from two or more nationally recognised critics. You are saying that it was widely distributed, but you haven't addressed the reviews - if you can find those, there would be an argument to keep the article. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 17:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- The ability to reference its existence to IMDb and a television listings grid was never evidence of its notability in the first place. The notability of a film is demonstrated by reliable source coverage about the film in sources it isn't directly affiliated with, such as recognized film critics reviewing it and/or journalism being done about its production, not by indiscriminate film directories or TV Guide. As nice as it would be to have enough quality information out there to write and maintain a solid, well-sourced article about every single film that's ever existed at all, it's not Wikipedia's mandate to privilege the "every single film that's ever existed" part of the equation over the "solid and well-sourced" part — we keep articles about films that can be shown to clear WP:NFILM by getting media coverage about them, and don't keep articles about films that can't. Bearcat (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- Also may be worth mentioning that in the ten years since their account was created, Abandond has only ever edited this article, or the article that used to exist on Sebastian MacLean, who appeared in the film. Nothing inherently wrong with that, perhaps they are a big fan, but if they have a particular connection with this film, they ought to declare it per WP:COI. GirthSummit (blether) 13:15, 24 January 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.