436:. The notability here is pretty razor thin. I added a book mention where the film is given about two paragraphs worth of discussion. The other sourcing is pretty thin, but just enough to establish notability. With FilmThreat, the site is generally considered to be reliable, but I hadn't noticed how obvious their pay to play service had become. This needs more evaluation at RS/N to determine which posts and reviews from them should be considered reliable. Anything that was paid to have reviewed shouldn't be considered reliable, obviously.
60:
Obviously there is no consensus to delete. Page was relisted 7 days ago, with no discussion since. While I could've closed as keep just going by a simple head count, only one of the keep arguments is a straightforward keep that actually makes any attempt to address the nominator's concerns, while the
282:
Other than the
Jezebel and Buzzfeed articles, which interestingly enough are extremely and reasonably critical of the documentary, there isn't much else to establish notability. The rest of the sources (and even the additional sources I can find) are just listings of "x played at y festival", with
377:
source devotes three sentences to this film, not one sentence. Staff blogs by professional journalists are acceptable as sources. Accuracy matters. Looking more closely, I understand your concerns about FilmThreat which seems to have a "pay to play" business model but I see no indication that the
361:
I had checked those myself but the
Vancouver one is a staff blog, so while still more reliable than if it weren't staff, isn't endorsed by their editorial board and is a single sentence, not a review of the film but the filmthreat is of dubious notability and reliability (as I have opined in the
290:
I'd also point out that if there were more coverage, I wouldn't be afding this but the problem I have is that while the
Buzzfeed coverage is fairly decent and the critique from Jezebel is as well, Jezebel is largely based on Breure's Buzzfeed interview so in my opinion, neither of this are
283:
those festivals largely being non-notable. Wrt the award by NVVS - it doesn't appear to be a notable award, so it also doesn't contribute to notability and the jurors/judges that awarded it don't appear to be notable names or known in their respective scientific/medical communities.
417:
This article has gone through three nominations for deletion. It appears to have some okay sourcing and, while I wouldn't necessarily oppose it going away, I also think that this fight has happened before and the focus should be on improvement rather than deletion.
61:
second and third seem to share the nominator's concerns on sourcing. All three keep arguments also raised concerns on one particular source (FilmThreat) and there is substantial debate even among those !voting keep as to which sources are sufficient.
114:
109:
251:
286:
I've done a fair amount of digging and despite the two articles I mentioned above, there doesn't seem to be sufficient coverage to support this article and certainly not to the extent that it's currently written.
104:
245:
340:
317:
208:
313:
140:
181:
176:
185:
155:
168:
309:
482:
450:
427:
408:
387:
368:
352:
326:
301:
83:
295:
as basically being one single major review. So on it's own, these two just simply don't establish notability and that's ignoring the fact that
266:
233:
135:
128:
17:
149:
145:
55:
227:
172:
77:
461:
501:
40:
223:
212:
64:
Based on the actual substance of the arguments presented, that's why I'm closing this as no consensus and not keep.—
399:
One hit in GBooks talking about the film, it's a snippet view from where I am so I can't see how acceptable it is.
443:
273:
164:
94:
497:
362:
past) because it doesn't identify who is writing reviews and is largely rehashed bits of other reviews.
36:
239:
437:
423:
404:
383:
348:
259:
292:
336:
124:
71:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
496:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
87:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
363:
296:
473:
419:
400:
379:
344:
321:
65:
202:
492:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
115:
Articles for deletion/Are All Men
Pedophiles? (3rd nomination)
110:
Articles for deletion/Are All Men
Pedophiles? (2nd nomination)
464:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
198:
194:
190:
258:
470:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
272:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
504:). No further edits should be made to this page.
308:Note: This discussion has been included in the
105:Articles for deletion/Are All Men Pedophiles?
8:
156:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
378:reviewer did not actually watch the film.
307:
335:I found additional coverage of the film
102:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
312:lists for the following topics:
141:Introduction to deletion process
1:
291:significant enough to meet
131:(AfD)? Read these primers!
521:
483:06:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
451:11:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
428:00:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
409:16:16, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
388:04:16, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
369:20:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
353:20:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
327:18:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
302:18:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
494:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
165:Are All Men Pedophiles?
100:AfDs for this article:
95:Are All Men Pedophiles?
84:19:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
441:(formerly Tokyogirl79)
213:edits since nomination
129:Articles for deletion
88:(non-admin closure)
485:
481:
442:
329:
146:Guide to deletion
136:How to contribute
90:
59:
56:non-admin closure
512:
480:
478:
471:
469:
467:
465:
447:
440:
366:
324:
310:deletion sorting
299:
277:
276:
262:
206:
188:
126:
86:
80:
74:
68:
53:
34:
520:
519:
515:
514:
513:
511:
510:
509:
508:
502:deletion review
474:
472:
460:
458:
445:
438:ReaderofthePack
364:
322:
297:
219:
179:
163:
160:
123:
120:
119:
98:
78:
72:
66:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
518:
516:
507:
506:
488:
487:
468:
454:
453:
412:
411:
393:
392:
391:
390:
371:
356:
355:
330:
280:
279:
216:
159:
158:
153:
143:
138:
121:
118:
117:
112:
107:
101:
99:
97:
92:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
517:
505:
503:
499:
495:
490:
489:
486:
484:
479:
477:
466:
463:
456:
455:
452:
449:
448:
439:
435:
432:
431:
430:
429:
425:
421:
416:
410:
406:
402:
398:
395:
394:
389:
385:
381:
376:
375:Vancouver Sun
372:
370:
367:
360:
359:
358:
357:
354:
350:
346:
342:
338:
334:
331:
328:
325:
319:
315:
311:
306:
305:
304:
303:
300:
294:
288:
284:
275:
271:
268:
265:
261:
257:
253:
250:
247:
244:
241:
238:
235:
232:
229:
225:
222:
221:Find sources:
217:
214:
210:
204:
200:
196:
192:
187:
183:
178:
174:
170:
166:
162:
161:
157:
154:
151:
147:
144:
142:
139:
137:
134:
133:
132:
130:
125:
116:
113:
111:
108:
106:
103:
96:
93:
91:
89:
85:
81:
75:
69:
62:
57:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
493:
491:
475:
459:
457:
444:
433:
414:
413:
396:
374:
332:
289:
285:
281:
269:
263:
255:
248:
242:
236:
230:
220:
122:
63:
50:no consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
365:CUPIDICAE💕
318:Netherlands
298:CUPIDICAE💕
246:free images
476:Sandstein
498:talk page
434:Weak keep
420:PickleG13
401:Oaktree b
380:Cullen328
345:Cullen328
323:Spiderone
37:talk page
500:or in a
462:Relisted
293:WP:NFILM
209:View log
150:glossary
79:contribs
39:or in a
446:(｡◕‿◕｡)
397:Comment
252:WP refs
240:scholar
182:protect
177:history
127:New to
67:Mythdon
224:Google
186:delete
267:JSTOR
228:books
203:views
195:watch
191:links
16:<
424:talk
415:Keep
405:talk
384:talk
373:The
349:talk
341:here
339:and
337:here
333:Keep
316:and
314:Film
260:FENS
234:news
199:logs
173:talk
169:edit
73:talk
274:TWL
207:– (
426:)
407:)
386:)
351:)
343:.
320:.
254:)
211:|
201:|
197:|
193:|
189:|
184:|
180:|
175:|
171:|
82:)
76:•
52:.
422:(
403:(
382:(
347:(
278:)
270:·
264:·
256:·
249:·
243:·
237:·
231:·
226:(
218:(
215:)
205:)
167:(
152:)
148:(
70:(
58:)
54:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.