Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Superior Human?

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. KaisaL (talk) 01:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Superior Human?

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

The only websites and reviews I can find on this film are from blogs and the producers themselves. Hell, putlocker shows up before any of those reviews (only below the Wiki article, a primary source, and IMDb). Film fails just about every metric we have on such things. However, if I'm just suffering from Google Search Idiocy, feel free to correct me. Primefac (talk) 04:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not all films are notable (Wikipedia:Notability (films), and this one seems to be fail said policy. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google the film title can find many sources, such as the review from leading scientist

Marc Bekoff https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal-emotions/201204/the-superior-human-who-do-we-think-we-are

He is the author of several encyclopedia of animals. Plus the film has a high rating entry in IMDB, features notable people such as Gary Yourofsky, Drs. Steven Best, Bernard Rollin, and Richard D. Ryder.Fn2gf3431 (talk) 05:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Fn2gf3431 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It looks like this is one of their blogs - does anyone know if they have an editorial process or are they posted "as is"? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyogirl79, when I found it last night, it seemed to me that it's just a space for him to put his thoughts down. Primefac (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 2:13 pm, Today (UTC+9)

Delete Non Notable fails WP:GNG --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 05:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 05:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The most common way that a film becomes notable is through published reviews by professional film critics. The article claims that there have been over 100 reviews and provides a link to a list. I scrolled through that list and found no such professional reviews. Instead, I found amateur reviews by involved activists and random viewers. I found no significant coverage of the film in independent, reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's academic work in the form of film. As show in the sources, it is participated, reviewed and promoted by many world leading academics. You may not like the message, but you cannot deny the significance of the work. Good Wikipedians don't put personal view over neutrality Fn2gf3431 (talk) 06:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a reliable, independent source that says that it is an "academic work in the form of film". Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:28, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

why you lawyering? It is evident,it is participated, reviewed and promoted by many world leading academics.Fn2gf3431 (talk) 07:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete clearly fails WP:NFILM. meets none of this criteria. LibStar (talk) 09:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Comment: Actually not quite so "clear", specially as documentary films have it far more difficult than do big-studio, major studio blockbusters... and here we have a tongue-in-cheek Australian doc film. But looking beyond the addressable issue of an article using poor sources, the authored WP:NEWSBLOG review in Psychology Today is fine under WP:RSOPINION, but we'd need more to meet WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:58, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Be ware of Wikipedia:Systemic bias. Below are quotes from WP:NF that are most relevant to the film. The film easily meets WP:NF for having multiple notable people

1) The film represents a unique accomplishment in cinema, is a milestone in the development of film art, or contributes significantly to the development of a national cinema, with such verifiable claims as "The only cel-animated feature film ever made in Thailand"

2) The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career.

Fn2gf3431 (talk) 13:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned earlier, please give us a reliable source that states #1, because as I read it: there is no unique accomplishment, it isn't a milestone in development, and doesn't seem to contribute to national cinema. As for #2, are you suggesting that this film is the only highlight these people's careers, that they will only be known for this film? If so, please provide evidence of this, because it certainly seems that they are mainly notable for other things (based on our Wikipedia pages). Primefac (talk) 15:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You don't actually read the article, the sources,the wikipedia policy and my comment, many people don't like animal rights. I am guessing you have anti-animal-rights bias too, so you nominate it for AfD

'Michael Snow and Jimmy Wales have said in an open letter: How can we build on our success to overcome the challenges that lie ahead? Less than a fifth of the world's population has access to the Internet. While hundreds of thousands of volunteers have contributed to Wikimedia projects today, they are not fully representative of the diversity of the world. Many choices lie ahead as we work to build a world wide movement to create and share free knowledge.'

1)What you are asking is already in the article. 'first documentary to challenge the common belief that humans are superior to other species of life.' from reference 2

2)No, I am not suggesting it, I suggest that the film features significant involvement by notable people and is a major part of their careers. Can you tell what we are saying are different?

Fn2gf3431 (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fn2gf3431 Please refrain from making WP:ADHOMINEM attacks against other editors. This makes you look very, very bad by extension and usually only serves to put incoming editors on the defensive, as they have to question whether or not they will also be called "anti-animal-rights" if they do not agree with you. Attacking other editors can also lead to you receiving a block from editing if it continues. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:58, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searched for reliable sources and found none. Until significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent can be provided the article fails notability. Samf4u (talk) 12:56, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as, at best, the listed coverage is still not enough and the consensus shows we would need better, delete and draft, if ever needed, at a later time. SwisterTwister talk 18:44, 26 June 2016 (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.