Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:43, 10 August 2015

Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs

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

This article was originally speedy deleted but restored following a DRV discussion concluding that it did not meet the criteria for G11. There are however still doubts about the film's notability. I am listing this on AFD as a matter of administrative procedure and neutral. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not seeing enough independent reliable source coverage to meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Everymorning talk 14:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to demonstrate that the subject matter meets our notability guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The film's so unnotable that it doesn't even have reviews on Rotten Tomato. CerealKillerYum (talk) 19:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The film has received a fair amount of accolades in Independent film: 1, 2:

Nevada International Film Festival - Best Documentary

Hoboken International Film Festival - Best Documentary

White Sands International Film Festival - Best Director

Worldfest Houston - Special Jury Award - Higher than Platinum

Official Selection: Breckenridge Festival of Film, Chicago Underground Film Festival, Indie Fest USA, NYC Independent Film Festival, Urbanworld Film Festival, White Sands International Film Festival petrarchan47 คุ ก 19:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will all due respect to Nevada etc, I don't think that such awards are quite on the scale of the Academy Awards or Palme D'or given as examples at WP:NFILM - and if these awards are significant, one would expect proper coverage of the awards being given in third-party sources, rather than the passing mentions you link. The article doesn't even cite any reviews in the mainstream media, which one would have thought would be a start if the film is actually of lasting significance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The film clearly fails WP:NFILM, and this article is little more than a poorly-disguised attempt to push WP:FRINGE views and further advertise the film. The film itself is a trainwreck of conspiracies and falsehoods that has no encyclopedic merit, which is proven quite clearly in this extremely comprehensive article on the film. At the absolute least, the entire article needs to be rewritten almost entirely in order to comply with wiki guidelines, starting with WP:NPOV, and even then, it's still going to fail WP:NFILM. Garzfoth (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. notable film that has won at least 4 awards and possibly more. Due to the controversial nature of the film, the fact that it has made it to recognition that it has so far is proof. There are some mainstream news sources that deliberately avoided covering the film because of it's controversial nature. Not only is the film by a highly notable figure Gary Null, it also features highly notable figures such as Jeffrey Smith, Vandana Shiva, Shiv Chopra, Bruce Lipton, Joseph Mercola and Arpad Pusztai and more! Mr Bill Truth (talk) 08:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: Mr Bill Truth (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. . Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It sucks for us, as editors who might want to include something, that other news sources have not covered it for whatever reason. But that's how Wikipedia works, and it's pretty bad faith on any editor's part to assume nefarious reasons without cite of that motivation. And it's even worse to use that assumption as evidence that this thing is such a hot potato that surely we must write about it. Or that some hidden forces are trying to hold it down, so that any reporting is surely representative of so much more that would have actually been written if not. WP might just have to be content being part of that giant cover-up for now. DMacks (talk) 08:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply to me DMacks is not the correct one because I wasn't talking about that. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume your reply has a bit of emotion in it's load rather than your twisting things around. :) Mr Bill Truth (talk) 10:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"There are some mainstream news sources that deliberately avoided covering the film because of it's controversial nature"? Really? Do you have a reliable source for that? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect - fails WP:NFILM. WegianWarrior (talk) 12:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect it fails WP:NFILM and I'm concerned that this article is also being used as a WP:COAT to promote the quackery of the film. The only bona fide WP:RS I could find dismisses the film as such. I have added a key quote to Null's bio article as well, should this be redirected there. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IMPORTANT NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN, From the get-go this article was speedily deleted by User:Winner 42 under an incorrect claim of G11 which was completely uncalled for. There was nothing promotional about the film at all. Nothing! The user that deleted the film was User:RHaworth. A discussion took place on the user's Talk Page. It was pointed out to RHarworth that the deletion was invalid and the reply was I think the references were a bit too weak but it is certainly worth a try at DRV. So it seems that the deleting user is doing one thing but then saying another. IT was discussed at As per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 July 29. If you could please look into this then that would be a good thing. Already another user on Wikipedia has noticed something. Thanks Mr Bill Truth (talk) 12:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, accusing an admin of duplicity when he's trying to give you the benefit of the doubt is a really really smart strategy. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that it was incorrect. I'm saying it was wrong. You're saying what you're saying and I guess you feel the need to. Mr Bill Truth (talk) 13:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The initial speedy deletion and deletion review are complete, closed, and irrelevant to this discussion. An article can be sent from speedy to afd without any commentary on the quality of the article or sourcing as long as it is determined the speedy deletion criteria was not met.Dialectric (talk) 13:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:FILM and is a coatrack. Jytdog (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Weak keep per just meeting WP:NF through Discover Magazine, Rebelion, Piensa Chile, The Real News and a few others. I care not one whit about the truth or not of the film's assertions, as Notability or lack is not determined by article content, but rather by available coverage. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I disagree that the coverage meets WP:NF as none of the sources given are reliable. The first source is a skeptic blog, the second and third sources while looking reliable are actually just a republication of a fringe source [1]. The fourth source is also an unreliable source and doesn't provide significant coverage. Winner 42 Talk to me! 12:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2013/05/31/gary-null-cultivator-of-dangerous-woo-plants-seeds-of-death/#.VcRK-XFVikq is reliable. It is a blog published by Discover Magazine, by respected science and environment journalist and journalism prof Keith Kloor. Michael is right that the reliable sources don't have to be laudatory, a film can be notably awful, even if that clearly wasn't the intention of the article creator in this case. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That said, in my Chrome-translated version of Piensa Chile I see only a passing mention of the film towards the end, while "The Real News" seems to me to be more of a prmotional link to the video than coverage. I don't see enough to change my !vote. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies to Mr. Kloor, I did not realize that he was an expert, but I agree that this is not significant coverage of the film but of Gary Null. Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 6 x awards and official selection at 6 fests >>>> is an indication of the notability in that respect. I can see at grassroots level this film is a major player. Possibly more awards in European countries too. Mr Bill Truth (talk) 14:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are major festivals or awards. But that's another thing: Houston's Worldfest (the most known of the fests) seems to have given him a "SPECIAL JURY AWARD" just about every time Null has a film at the festival, which is odd. (if you do a Google search for the director's name and Worldfest Houston there's an Excel sheet you can download). Yet I can find no independent source verifying that this Null-film won there. And no, the PBS station page shilling for the film is not a reliable source. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect - along with all the other Null film articles which also fail to meet WP:NFILM (which is all of them). --Orange Mike | Talk 20:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike. I don't know if I'd go that far. His recent poverty film, for example, garnered standalone reviews in both the LA and New York Times, I see (and to my surprise). Different reviewers, it wasn't just like a wire story thing. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE TO ADMIN REGARDING CONSENSUS A proper consensus may not be able to be reached here for a couple of reasons. One reason is there are those who monitor the deletion boards and feel that their role is to police what stays or goes. Other good, honest people who edit here have no idea about what gets nominated for deletion. This being the case, they happily work on articles with no idea about what is taking place behind the scenes. I believe there are those here who have a communication system (what ever it may) to alert each other. Another reason is there are 2, possibly 3 users already here who have a history of contributing to not only the deletion of certain types of articles but also making sure certain articles do not evolve to something that may include certain info. There is and yes there is also a team-work effort that involves one member doing edits then when that member tires of it the other one comes on. This occurred on a health-related article I was editing as well as one other. As it has happened a few times and I have noticed a pattern, it could be just an innocent case of a young couple that may be looking after an infant. I'd like to think that this is is the case. I'm not going to mention names here as I was advised by another member that it is wrong to "out". What I will at some stage is submit my findings to a trusted admin. I'd like to be wrong on this, I really would but from what I have learnt from a couple of members plus from my own observations, I have to say that these things to happen and could be going on here. So if I'm right, I'd just ask that you allow the maximum time allowed before closure so that other editors (good & honest) may chance upon this discussion and add some balance to it. Thanks. Mr Bill Truth (talk) 11:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah the good old, "Consensus doesn't agree with me therefore it is wrong" approach. This time with the extra spice of accusations of a WP:CABAL and an attempt to WP:FILIBUSTER the process. Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've created the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gulf War Syndrome: Killing Our Own. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

YOUTUBE HIGH HITS
According to the Scientific American website and some others - Seeds of death: unveiling the lies of GMOs appears as one of the top hits in a quick search. >>>>>>>
And there's Academia.edu >>>>>>>
Enlightened Consciousness website's Yvonne Holterman who was critical of the film in calling it a propaganda film did say that the film had 1.8 million views at December 2014. She has said that it was the anti-GMO propaganda film on the youtube website with the most views. >>>>>>

@@ Line 55: / Line 55: @@
 :*Ah the good old, "Consensus doesn't agree with me therefore it is wrong" approach. This time with the extra spice of accusations of a [[WP:CABAL]] and an attempt to [[WP:FILIBUSTER]] the process.  [[User:Winner 42|'''Winner 42''']]  [[User talk: Winner 42|Talk to me!]]  17:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 *I've created the related [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gulf War Syndrome: Killing Our Own]]. [[User:Shawn in Montreal|Shawn in Montreal]] ([[User talk:Shawn in Montreal|talk]]) 12:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
+*'''<u>YOUTUBE HIGH HITS</u>'''<br> According to the '''[[Scientific American]] website''' and some others - ''Seeds of death: unveiling the lies of GMOs'' appears as one of the top hits in a quick search. [http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-we-trust-monsanto-with-our-food/ >>>>>>>]<br> And there's '''[[Academia.edu]]''' [http://www.academia.edu/6944149/Waarom_Monsanto_een_zwart_imago_heeft >>>>>>>] <br>'''Enlightened Consciousness''' website's Yvonne Holterman who was critical of the film in calling it a propaganda film did say that the film had 1.8 million views at December 2014.  She has said that it was the anti-GMO propaganda film on the youtube website with <u>the most views.</u>  [http://www.enlightened-consciousness.com/seeds-of-death-unveiling-the-lies-of-gmos-full-movie/ >>>>>>]