870:(Museum of London) that does not necessarily advance notability. A source on an object or item can be perfectly acceptable to support content without advancing notability on itself yet give credibility of the subject to which it belongs or is attributed to. Not to mention that creating articles is a worthy goal but we should not do so when it would be better served in a parent article that would expand and enhance it. There are literally millions of artifacts and items in museums around the world. Those that receive multiple reliable and independent sourcing is deserving a stand alone article. Also, Twitter is among those considered as an unreliable source as a social network and generally removed. Another factor is I seem to have run into more than one
896:
are being penalised by having been unattended by wikipedia editors for years. As you make note here, all the links are dead and it was poorly put together to begin with. That said, I've already found offline sources on
Atheron's article to back-up dead-links and exxpect to do the same on all these too. Did the news article I posted above warrant coverage for notability's sake by the way? I realise I don't think it's referenced in the article?
612:, either on Social Media or elsewhere not recognised as a valid reference within the context of the article? Especially when that reference links Atherton to the @LondonersLondon twitter account, which establishes the connection between him, the twitter account and the museum and places his diary in the exhibition and contextualises its import by using the image of
608:
seems to thik that isn't Third Party coverage of the event which seems extremely odd to me. As you've rightly pointed out, notability of an individual can be established by having work collected into a Museum, but it doesn't then follow that that work is notable? As for the
Twitter reference, why is communications from the institution of the
895:
I've found myself embroiled in a lot of debates, when my focus was originally just on
Atherton's article, but in tidying that up, it's triggered all the AFD's by HouseOfChange on his associated films which had been left alone for in some instances for over a decade. It appears to me that the articles
554:
but the online links are dead now, so hopefully going to retrieve the articles from the libraries of both. Would that be deemed sufficient press coverage? I also take your point about being insufficient details on
Knowledge about Museum Collections and Notability an interesting article on the subject
509:
as a search yielded nothing of significance. The fact that an individual work of art is in the collection of museum does not in itself indicate notability because there is no guideline on wikipedia that indicates this. However, having the information about this piece being in the museum collection in
683:
I think the problem with this, is the object can be interpreted as three things, a diary, a film or an artwork. As a film the Museum of London could then be seen as a
Secondary Source in it's own right under the inclusionary rule "Some films that do not pass the above tests may still be notable, and
577:
It's possible that these sources would help. It really depends on how significant the coverage in those articles is, and if the art work is the main subject of a review or not. If it's only tangentially mentioned as a part of a larger show or if it is mentioned in the context of a press release and
717:
That's a stretch. Let's continue by putting that guideline in context with the next sentence "The article's ability to attest to a film's notability through verifiable sources is significant." In other words, there has to be some sort of significant tangible pieces (emphasis on plural/multiple) of
647:
had broad consensus to use the inclusion of a work in a museum as confering notability on the artist, but it is not transferable to the artwork itself. I agree that wikipedia has a policy gap in this content area, and I personally would support an official guideline for the inclusion of artwork in
607:
The nature of the event, means it wouldn't be reviewed it would be reported upon, The
Showcase show (as mentioned above) was to acknowledge the collection of Atherotn's Video Diary into the Museum of London. It was covered with an interview with Atherton on the news, which is cited above. Duffbeer
865:
or others that are relevant. I do agree that bringing up issues in this area at WikiProject Film a good idea. "The fact that an individual work of art is in the collection of museum does not in itself indicate notability" is true. A museum reporting or covering a piece of artwork or article on
314:
whilst drafting the article and before the experienced editor published from the "Articles for
Creation" process. The over-riding criteria for this being accepted by Reader was that it was taken into the permanent collection of the
582:. One of the main issues with the article as it stands is it's use of primary source material (which is not good) and its use of highly inappropriate references like twitter. If you have questions about sourcing, please read
860:
and not in opposition or exception to them. When it seems or is deemed there is a lack of policy or specific guideline coverage to me there does not become a "gap", or hole to be possibly exploited, but we fall back on
215:
852:; I feel that I am "well versed" in policies and guidelines but that is sometimes subjected to bold changes and interpretations sometimes not actually vetted. I am among those that feel guidelines like
557:"There is as yet no specific Notability guideline written for museum objects or artworks and I believe this to be one of the greatest issues hindering greater Museum-Knowledge collaboration."
418:. Though press coverage in this instance would seem irrelevant to notability as it would simply be a measure of popularity as the notability would have been established by the institution.
474:
the absence of such a redirect would suggest that such an invention is, as yet, not widely recognised, which further complicates the issue of
Notability as this would appear to be a first.
283:
168:
209:
652:
as the standard which requires a certain level of sourcing. Unfortunately, announcements about a work are considered standard PR for the museum and do not contribute to
792:
I don't know if I am the best person to answer that question. I am well versed in policy, but you are digging into an obscure area. I suggest you ask this question at
364:
934:
263:
115:
100:
730:. If you really feel strongly about the Museum of London inclusion being seen as a Secondary Source, I suggest you start a discussion thread at
731:
692:
which houses over a million objects, it thus makes it a unique proposition and therefore made notable by the academic acceptance of selection.
175:
246:
Non-notable film. Promotional article created and inflated by COI editor whose many edits focus on promoting London filmmaker Paul
Atherton.
55:. There is a clear consensus that the article should not exist as is, and the next most supported option is the proposed merge and redirect.
411:
141:
136:
829:. This is a direct indication that the article does not warrant stand-alone status so if this option is not deemed viable I will agree to
145:
128:
767:. Are there are any excpetional films, that do not comply with the "above tests" and if so what were the conditions they passed on?
759:
Which appears oxymoronic to me. The statement opens with "Some films that do not pass the above tests" which includes the tests of
793:
230:
95:
88:
17:
197:
648:
museums. However, that is not the policy currently in use and, in the absence of a consensus based guideline, we must use
689:
559:
makes the issue clear, though it surprised me that there have been no further developments on this issue for nine years?
109:
105:
337:
191:
965:
871:
719:
40:
462:
Third Party coverage of the event is going to focus on him, it's his Video Diary, It's his and his son's life.
946:
913:
883:
842:
805:
776:
743:
701:
665:
628:
595:
568:
523:
483:
445:
427:
396:
376:
355:
328:
295:
275:
255:
70:
546:'s article and researching offline material. Coverage was previously found in respect to Our London Lives in
187:
909:
901:
772:
734:
and see if others would support that interpretation. Who knows, you may find consensus to support you there.
723:
697:
624:
583:
564:
479:
454:
Surely if the show "Recording A Life" wasn't of news interest, Atherton wouldn't have been invited onto the
441:
423:
392:
324:
291:
271:
251:
961:
942:
237:
132:
36:
930:
617:
387:. Lacks independent coverage. If the museum thing was that significant you'd expect to see coverage.
311:
223:
556:
905:
897:
787:
768:
764:
712:
693:
639:
620:
560:
475:
437:
419:
388:
372:
351:
320:
287:
267:
247:
867:
853:
801:
739:
661:
644:
591:
547:
539:
519:
511:
203:
84:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
960:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
938:
879:
838:
653:
609:
579:
551:
506:
316:
307:
124:
76:
65:
415:
685:
410:
The film was taken into the Museum of London's collection through an exhibition entitled
926:
857:
760:
727:
649:
543:
502:
368:
347:
51:
937:. I wouldn't call it being included amongst 5,000 hours of material -too- notable.
826:
797:
754:
735:
678:
657:
613:
604:
587:
535:
515:
162:
929:. He seems to have a different film in the BFI archive (also pretty large), and
890:
875:
834:
463:
459:
56:
796:. The editors there will know the answer to that question. Hope that helps.
718:
evidence of the work's importance as dictated by other core policies like
414:
where it was screened, and did receive coverage in the media including on
510:
the article on the artist would help that article by showing he meets
514:, so the content would be valuable on the article on Paul Atherton.
471:
954:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
467:
455:
874:(action for M.E.) which doesn't help advance notability. --
340:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
436:
Talking about your own film is not independent coverage.
158:
154:
150:
222:
616:diary? It would seem to be applicable according to
346:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
284:
list of United
Kingdom-related deletion discussions
866:display, even if Tweeter was accepted, would be a
319:as cited and on that basis is therefore notable.
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
968:). No further edits should be made to this page.
363:Note: This discussion has been included in the
282:Note: This discussion has been included in the
262:Note: This discussion has been included in the
690:Video-Diary in the Museum of London Collection
578:not a review than it would not count towards
236:
8:
470:on Knowledge and should in fact redirect to
365:list of England-related deletion discussions
116:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
542:'s suggestion, I am attmepting to tidy up
362:
281:
261:
684:should be evaluated on their own merits"
656:. The artwork being reviewed would count.
264:list of Film-related deletion discussions
466:incorrectly in my opinion, redirects to
732:Knowledge:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
7:
24:
863:the general notability guidelines
310:declared her COI with the editor
101:Introduction to deletion process
904:) 13:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
794:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Film
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
933:is in the Museum of London's
505:. On its own, the work fails
947:18:01, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
914:14:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
884:11:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
843:11:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
806:09:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
777:08:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
744:20:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
702:19:13, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
666:16:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
629:16:10, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
596:11:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
569:08:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
524:17:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
484:08:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
446:02:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
428:12:09, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
397:04:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
377:02:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
356:02:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
329:20:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
71:00:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
50:Selective Merge/Redirect to
296:02:27, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
276:15:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
256:15:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
91:(AfD)? Read these primers!
985:
306:The author of the article
720:Knowledge:Reliable source
957:Please do not modify it.
923:Selective Merge/Redirect
856:work with those such as
823:Selective Merge/Redirect
499:Selective Merge/Redirect
32:Please do not modify it.
688:. As this is the only
825:to Paul Atherton per
89:Articles for deletion
412:"Recording A Life"
548:Time Out Magazine
379:
358:
298:
278:
106:Guide to deletion
96:How to contribute
976:
959:
894:
791:
758:
724:WP:VERIFIABILITY
716:
682:
643:
610:Museum of London
584:WP:VERIFIABILITY
552:Evening Standard
416:London Live News
345:
343:
341:
317:Museum of London
241:
240:
226:
178:
166:
148:
125:Our London Lives
86:
77:Our London Lives
63:
34:
984:
983:
979:
978:
977:
975:
974:
973:
972:
966:deletion review
955:
888:
785:
752:
710:
676:
637:
359:
336:
334:
312:ReaderOfThePack
183:
174:
139:
123:
120:
83:
80:
57:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
982:
980:
971:
970:
950:
949:
919:
918:
917:
916:
868:primary source
846:
845:
819:
818:
817:
816:
815:
814:
813:
812:
811:
810:
809:
808:
780:
779:
747:
746:
705:
704:
673:
672:
671:
670:
669:
668:
632:
631:
599:
598:
572:
571:
527:
526:
495:
494:
493:
492:
491:
490:
489:
488:
487:
486:
449:
448:
431:
430:
400:
399:
381:
380:
344:
333:
332:
331:
300:
299:
279:
244:
243:
180:
119:
118:
113:
103:
98:
81:
79:
74:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
981:
969:
967:
963:
958:
952:
951:
948:
944:
940:
939:- ChrisWar666
936:
932:
928:
927:Paul Atherton
924:
921:
920:
915:
911:
907:
906:Itsallnewtome
903:
899:
898:Itsallnewtome
892:
887:
886:
885:
881:
877:
873:
869:
864:
859:
855:
851:
848:
847:
844:
840:
836:
832:
828:
824:
821:
820:
807:
803:
799:
795:
789:
788:Itsallnewtome
784:
783:
782:
781:
778:
774:
770:
769:Itsallnewtome
766:
762:
756:
751:
750:
749:
748:
745:
741:
737:
733:
729:
725:
721:
714:
713:Itsallnewtome
709:
708:
707:
706:
703:
699:
695:
694:Itsallnewtome
691:
687:
680:
675:
674:
667:
663:
659:
655:
651:
646:
641:
640:Itsallnewtome
636:
635:
634:
633:
630:
626:
622:
621:Itsallnewtome
619:
618:WP:Twitter-EL
615:
611:
606:
603:
602:
601:
600:
597:
593:
589:
585:
581:
576:
575:
574:
573:
570:
566:
562:
561:Itsallnewtome
558:
555:back in 2010
553:
549:
545:
544:Paul Atherton
541:
537:
534:
531:
530:
529:
528:
525:
521:
517:
513:
508:
504:
503:Paul Atherton
500:
497:
496:
485:
481:
477:
476:Itsallnewtome
473:
469:
465:
461:
457:
453:
452:
451:
450:
447:
443:
439:
438:duffbeerforme
435:
434:
433:
432:
429:
425:
421:
420:Itsallnewtome
417:
413:
409:
406:
405:
404:
403:
402:
401:
398:
394:
390:
389:duffbeerforme
386:
383:
382:
378:
374:
370:
366:
361:
360:
357:
353:
349:
342:
339:
330:
326:
322:
321:Itsallnewtome
318:
313:
309:
305:
302:
301:
297:
293:
289:
288:Coolabahapple
285:
280:
277:
273:
269:
268:HouseOfChange
265:
260:
259:
258:
257:
253:
249:
248:HouseOfChange
239:
235:
232:
229:
225:
221:
217:
214:
211:
208:
205:
202:
199:
196:
193:
189:
186:
185:Find sources:
181:
177:
173:
170:
164:
160:
156:
152:
147:
143:
138:
134:
130:
126:
122:
121:
117:
114:
111:
107:
104:
102:
99:
97:
94:
93:
92:
90:
85:
78:
75:
73:
72:
69:
68:
64:
62:
61:
54:
53:
52:Paul Atherton
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
956:
953:
922:
862:
849:
830:
827:User:4meter4
822:
614:Samuel Pepys
540:Girth Summit
532:
498:
407:
384:
335:
303:
245:
233:
227:
219:
212:
206:
200:
194:
184:
171:
82:
66:
59:
58:
49:
47:
31:
28:
765:WP:Reliable
464:Video diary
460:Independent
308:Amanda Paul
210:free images
935:collection
645:WP:NARTIST
550:& the
512:WP:NARTIST
962:talk page
931:this film
872:dead link
654:WP:SIGCOV
580:WP:SIGCOV
507:WP:SIGCOV
37:talk page
964:or in a
850:Comments
686:WP:MOVIE
369:feminist
348:feminist
338:Relisted
169:View log
110:glossary
39:or in a
854:NARTIST
798:4meter4
755:4meter4
736:4meter4
679:4meter4
658:4meter4
605:4meter4
588:4meter4
536:4meter4
533:Comment
516:4meter4
408:Comment
216:WP refs
204:scholar
142:protect
137:history
87:New to
891:Otr500
876:Otr500
835:Otr500
831:Delete
761:WP:GNG
728:WP:GNG
726:, and
650:WP:GNG
458:. Any
385:Delete
188:Google
146:delete
60:bd2412
472:Diary
231:JSTOR
192:books
176:Stats
163:views
155:watch
151:links
16:<
943:talk
910:talk
902:talk
880:talk
839:talk
802:talk
773:talk
740:talk
698:talk
662:talk
625:talk
592:talk
565:talk
520:talk
480:talk
468:Vlog
456:News
442:talk
424:talk
393:talk
373:talk
352:talk
325:talk
304:Keep
292:talk
272:talk
252:talk
224:FENS
198:news
159:logs
133:talk
129:edit
925:to
858:GNG
538:At
501:to
238:TWL
167:– (
945:)
912:)
882:)
841:)
833:.
804:)
775:)
763:,
742:)
722:,
700:)
664:)
627:)
594:)
567:)
522:)
482:)
444:)
426:)
395:)
375:)
367:.
354:)
327:)
294:)
286:.
274:)
266:.
254:)
218:)
161:|
157:|
153:|
149:|
144:|
140:|
135:|
131:|
941:(
908:(
900:(
893::
889:@
878:(
837:(
800:(
790::
786:@
771:(
757::
753:@
738:(
715::
711:@
696:(
681::
677:@
660:(
642::
638:@
623:(
590:(
586:.
563:(
518:(
478:(
440:(
422:(
391:(
371:(
350:(
323:(
290:(
270:(
250:(
242:)
234:·
228:·
220:·
213:·
207:·
201:·
195:·
190:(
182:(
179:)
172:·
165:)
127:(
112:)
108:(
67:T
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.