Wikipedia:articles For Deletion Scout �s Oath (film)

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. Sandstein 16:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Scout’s Oath (film)

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a short film, whose only stated claim of notability per WP:NFILM is that it exists. That would be all the notability it required if the article were referenced to enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG -- but the only references here are its own self-published Kickstarter and the primary source website of a film festival where it screened. As always, every film does not automatically get a Wikipedia article just because it exists -- we need to see reliable source coverage about the film in media, not just primary-source verification that it exists. Bearcat ( talk) 20:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply

First of all, it's a stub about a film short, that doesn't make the article less notable. I found the following sources:

Among others. -- evrik ^(
talk) 20:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply

First of all, certainly short films aren't inherently less notable than feature films are, but feature films don't get an automatic inclusion freebie just because they exist either — there are specific notability standards, spelled out at WP:NFILM, that a film has to meet to earn a Wikipedia article regardless of whether it's a feature or a short or a documentary or what. But none of those are sources that bolster notability at all: three of the five are just profiles on the program websites of film festivals that screened it, which are directly affiliated sources that cannot assist passage of WP:GNG, and both of the other two are blogs, which are never acceptable or reliable sources for anything. So no, none of those sources cut any mustard whatsoever. Bearcat ( talk) 22:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Procedural keep-I could have sworn this article already existed. It could use a little more meat and more independent sourcing, but I must question the AFDing of an article two hours old, written by a Wiki veteran of a decade, without going through the time-honored notability/refimprove tagging first.-- Kintetsubuffalo ( talk) 01:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment It would have been nice to have been given more than two house to let the article grow. Here is another source:

"Lanzi settles suit against Boy Scouts". Santa Barbara News-Press. 2001-06-15. Retrieved 2017-09-25. -- evrik ^(
talk) 15:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply

We're not looking for coverage about the original lawsuit that the film was about — we're looking for coverage about the film as a film. That source would be perfectly fine for some verification of facts in the article, but it doesn't speak to the notability of the film at all, because it isn't about the film. And no, nobody owes you any particular amount of time to improve the article, either — you can always work on it in draft form, such as through WP:AFC or in your own user sandbox, but to be in articlespace today it has to already meet articlespace standards today. Bearcat ( talk) 14:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC) reply

There is enough here to let the article mature and give it time to grow. -- evrik ^(
talk) 17:34, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

No, there isn't. The inclusion yardstick is measuring the sources, not the content, and there are no sources present here that are both reliable and about the film — every source is one of those things or the other, and none of them is both. Bearcat ( talk) 02:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 10:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

I've added categories and fixed a layout issue, and probably would have moved on had Bearcat not brought this to Afd, but I agree it fails WP:NFILM. For example, Gnews search for the film name + director's last name yields zero results, which is not a good sign. Perhaps a short referenced passage on the Lanzi dismissal could be added to Boy Scouts of America membership controversies#Position on homosexuality, which currently makes no mention of this? Delete per nom. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisting this means that there was really no support for the original proposal. In fact there are now ten references. Two from newspapers. -- evrik ^(
talk) 18:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply

The articles from newspapers are not about the film, but are both about the original lawsuit that the film happens to profile. As I already pointed out above, what we require is reliable source coverage about the film as a film — newspaper articles about the lawsuit, written 15 years before the film existed, do not assist in demonstrating the notability of the film. And exactly none of the sources that are about the film are reliable or notability-assisting ones at all. Bearcat ( talk) 17:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject_LGBT_studies/Article_alerts#AfD. -- evrik ^(
talk) 15:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources about the film itself, rather than the film's subject matter. Meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:NFILM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete a lack of indepth coverage to show notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion about the sources please. Additionally, if the sources are all talking about a notable incident and not the film itself, is there scope to make an article about the incident and redirect the film title there?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 07:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete for, above all, failing WP:GNG. The references are listings of where the film was shown or news stories about the events in the film, but not of the film itself. Perhaps the incidents are notable enough for an article creation - but that is not the debate here. Redirecting makes no sense if there's nothing to redirect too. Consensus appears very clear to delete. Ifnord ( talk) 15:36, 18 October 2017 (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.