Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Torchbearer (documentary)

Torchbearer (documentary)

[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)

This is little more than a listing for a utterly non-notable propaganda film., whipped up by an editor who's stated that he's doing it for promotion "The best part is if you get an article to 1500 chars you can get the article advertised on the Main page and in front of 17 million eyeballs" --Calton | Talk 11:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC) Calton | Talk 11:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AFDs of articles created by the same editor

--Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:44, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I tried in earnest to improve the article, but the coverage is very shallow and mostly occurred during promotion of the film at Cannes. The article is unlikely to be expanded beyond a single short paragraph. Fails WP:NFO. Wikipedia is not a platform for promoting the propaganda of the far-right/alt-right.- Mr X 🖋 11:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You might also be interested that I had nominated his other article The Hope and the Change for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hope and the Change for the discussion. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The documentary has received significant coverage, therefore should qualify under WP:NFILM. There is nothing to suggest that this is promotion (the nom appears to misunderstand WP:PROMOTION), also if an article can be nominated for DYK, it does not mean that it will appear there. Hzh (talk) 11:53, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hzh: Could you point out some examples of significant coverage? I couldn't find much of anything.- Mr X 🖋 16:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are already some given in the article e.g. [1], there are sources that talk about the film, most often discussed in relation to Steve Bannon - [2][3][4][5], not to mention those from Christian sites [6][7][8]. Even those that just give passing mention to the film show that it has significance - [9][10]. Hzh (talk) 19:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 13:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the article clearly demonstrates significant coverage in reliable sources. Passes WP:GNG. This article is a stub meaning it is a prime candidate for expansion. Agree with other editors, nominator appears to have a misunderstanding of WP:PROMOTION. Wikipedia has a critical new editor retention problem. Encouraging new editors to participate in DYK is a strategy of engagement--not promotion. I'm trying to assume good faith, but the ad hominem comments by nominator display a certain personal animus. – Lionel^(talk) 19:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well you wording seem to imply that "he best part is if you get an article to 1500 chars you can get the article advertised on the Main page and in front of 17 million eyeballs" [bold added for emphasis]--Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 19:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The raison d'être for DYK is promotion. Whether you call it showcasing, highlighting or even advertising, it's just semanics. From WP:DYKAIM: DYK aims to achieve the following five goals:

1. To showcase new and improved content...

2. To highlight the variety of information...

4. ... contributing to editor retention

Bolding from original except #4. I repeat: there is a basic misunderstanding or WP:PROMOTION. – Lionel^(talk) 23:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Steve Bannon. The sources are reporting Steve Bannon and Phil Robertson rather than talking at any length about the film. Here's the Independent UK newspaper talking about how Bannon used the film as part of his campaign to make a ton of money and to fool a bunch of Americans into voting for Trump. Binksternet (talk) 22:57, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]