Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Art Machine

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 no consensus. This one seems to be on the edge, and the discussion resulted in no agreement on whether the available sources can be considered "significant coverage in reliable sources" for the purpose of establishing notability per WP:GNG, or whether the authors of the reviews could be considered "nationally known critics" as required by WP:NFILM. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 00:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Art Machine

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Another non-notable film article created by Matzonyc. Editor created the Doug Karr article in 2008, and articles for some Karr-produced films, all non-notable - and the account created nothing else. Purely self-promotional. Argles Barkley (talk) 22:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Argles Barkley (talk) 22:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
comment reviews: [1] [2] [3] Artw (talk) 23:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I think that Indiewire is definitely reliable enough, it's a well-established outlet. The Dissolve, according to WP, was a film review, news, and commentary website which was operated by Pitchfork and based in Chicago, Illinois. The site was focused on reviews, commentary, interviews, and news about contemporary and classic films.[1] Its editor was Scott Tobias, the former editor in chief of The A.V. Club.[1] Editorial director Keith Phipps announced The Dissolve's closure on July 8, 2015.. So it meets the mark for me. I am unsure about the third ref, it's on RT, but what's its editorial policies? There's an about us and staff page, but no editorial policies? Still, two reliable refs counting towards the GNG criteria or the first one of the Notability (film) one are enough for me to go with weak keep. VickKiang (talk) 07:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two reviews (not significant coverage, in my opinion - they're just hit-n-run reviews) are the sum total of this film's coverage in secondary sources. One of those, The Dissolve, a short-lived website, is very iffy. Never had a theatrical release. Nowhere close to meeting GNG or NFILM. After checking out the contributions of Matzonyc, I believe that this article was created by the director or someone working on his behalf. Wes sideman (talk) 13:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There’s absolutely nothing iffy about The Dissolve whatsoever. Artw (talk) 13:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was around for less than 2 years, and the review of this film was written by a Andrew Lapin, who describes himself as "Managing Editor for Local News for the Jewish Telegraphic Agency" - hardly Roger Ebert. Rewording my hasty vote explanation: I'm just saying that relying on that as half of the case for "significant coverage" is really iffy. Wes sideman (talk) 14:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per links above, the argument that The Dissolve hitting funding issues and having to fold renders it non-RS being laughable. Artw (talk) 15:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say The Dissolve is a non-RS. I said that two reviews, on their own, don't constitute significant coverage, and the writer of The Dissolve review isn't a notable film critic. To quote Chris Troutman: "*NFILM requires "Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release." That's not the case here. It also says "has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics" which hasn't been shown here. NFILM requires more than just two reliable sources." Wes sideman (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

if it’s stricter than GNG, or has been twisted to make it stricter than GNG, then it is pointless since GNG supersedes it and I will be ignoring it. Artw (talk) 15:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you are arguing that two reviews, by non-notable reviewers, constitutes "significant coverage", then you are ignoring GNG as well. Wes sideman (talk) 16:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am very much not going to be listening to you on the subject of source quality given our prior conversation. My vote remains keep. Artw (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm usually supporting deletion, but I voted for weak keep as I think two RS are enough. I disagree with that the reviews aren't a "significant" review. I think that to be significant coveage, probably only one very lengthy paragraph is needed, these two reviews are much longer (five and six), so I think it meets it meets GNG (multiple, indepedent, reliable refs), albeit just marginally, but the first criteria of WP:NFILM is contentious: The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. On RT, the critic in question has reviewed loads of films and appeared in RS, but he might not be "nationally well-known". Still, it is IMO that if the film meets either the GNG or one of the WP:NFILM criteria would be fine. I don't get that The Dissolve is particularly "iffy", it may not be the best, bt the former editor-in-chief did appear in some other RS per the sources cited in our WP article. Ye, it's now defunct, so it isn't that significant, but at least it's notable enough to have a WP article, and seems to be generally reliable (but not excellent, and far less than other film reviews, such as one from Roger Ebert or the NY Times). But I agree that it meets the GNG guidelines, and I think either achieving that or one of WP:NFILM would be fine. This article wouldn't be mch more than a start class one either way, but i's probably worth keeping for now. VickKiang (talk) 22:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passes WP:GNG with three full reviews. WP:NFILM is a guide as to whether a film will pass WP:GNG if it passes one or more of the listed criteria. Also in discussions by the film project nationally known critics means critics writing for national publications not whether the writer is famous or has an article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: I believe you are misinterpreting NFILM. It clearly states "full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." None of those reviews are by nationally-known critics. In addition, the preface to that section states "attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist" - even IF those attributes exist, it doesn't automatically qualify a film; it still has to meet GNG. Is that the criteria you are using for a Keep vote? Wes sideman (talk) 10:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes by passing WP:GNG. Nationally known critics means being known by having an audience in a national publication, that is the interpretation by WP:WikiProject Film who wrote WP:NFILM. If you disagree then ask them for clarification, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 19:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFSOURCES and WP:NFO #1. No significant coverage, and regarding the reviews: the third one doesn't seem reliable, Indiewire is reliable but the site nor Gabe Toro are a "nationally known critic". The Dissolve I think is also reliable, but again, not a "nationally known critic". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that meeting GNG is enough, as the WP:NFILM says: For the majority of topics related to film, the criteria established at the general notability guideline are sufficient to follow. So it's very borderline, and I'm okay with either keep or delete, but I feel that this meets GNG probably. VickKiang (talk) 03:24, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@VickKiang: I'm just curious, how do you believe this meets GNG if the sources are all reviews, most of which don't indicate wide coverage I'd expect for a film to simply meet GNG. Not to say the fact too there no info on the article save for a brief lead and an unsourced cast section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Favre1fan93: Per GNG: A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. In this case, I think there's two reliable, independent refs; where does it say that reviews "don't indicate wide coverage"? IMO reviews are much more significant than, say, press releases. The unsourced cast section could probably be rm if needed. VickKiang (talk) 03:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I meant "wide coverage" in that there aren't any other sources present besides the reviews (which again, are being put into question for their reliability and use). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reviews are full reviews meaning significant coverage for WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 22:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets notability as per additional sources now added. El Dubs (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Two (or three, if you count the really weak one, which personally I don't) reviews do not equal notability requirements spelled out by GNG. Merely another indie movie whose article was created by someone connected to it, and I see that the director's article was just deleted as well. There's literally nothing else written about this film in the 10 years since it was made and ignored. JimKaatFan (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Three full reviews is normally enough for WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 22:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But one has to consider the quality of such reviews, of which this film is lacking any quality ones to even start the GNG conversation. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Three full reviews is normally enough for WP:GNG"... You just made that up out of whole cloth. WP:NFILM specfically says "full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." None of the reviews for this film are by "nationally known critics". Wes sideman (talk) 11:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even the sources cited in the article point out how unnotable this film is-

Art Machine, a flat, insipid coming-of-age drama about a former child painting prodigy... (The Dissolve)
...it’s too bad that a stagnant film like “Art Machine” doesn’t bother to add much to the conversation. (IndieWire and Playlist)

It's not even 3 sources- the IndieWire and The Playlist reviews are the same article by Gabe Toro. Sean Brunnock (talk) 14:20, 31 July 2022 (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.