Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/School of Life (2005 film)

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 keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

School of Life (2005 film)

[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)

Despite my love for lead actor Ryan Reynolds, this film fails WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites. Perhaps it was one of his lesser known roles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmomusico (talk • contribs) 21:15, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 21:15, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 21:15, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 2 Critic Reviews at Rotten Tomatoes [1] DonaldD23 talk to me 22:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, just like with Santa Who?, we can't keep the article based on 2 sources, one of which, (Common Sense Media), is not considered to be a WP:RS.--Filmomusico (talk) 22:43, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You really need to read the guidelines better, because Common Sense Media IS a reliable source WP:RSP. Check it out. You opinion on CSM does not override multiple discussions which concluded that CSM IS a reliable source. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:38, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Donaldd23: CSM is used much less then Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, The New York Times, Slant, The Austin Chronicle and San Francisco Chronicle combined. I seen it used only on one article so far. How about you will give me a discussion where it says that CSM is reliable?--Filmomusico (talk) 00:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Did you click on the link I put above? Do that, find Common Sense Media, and then read the section about it. There are THREE discussions about CSM, most recently in 2020. Do I really have to do the work for you? And, the number of times YOU have seen it used is irrelevant, as you haven't been to every film page because it is listed at MANY. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Donaldd23: Ok. Clicked on it, read it. Concerned "As an advocacy organization, Common Sense Media is biased or opinionated, and its statements should generally be attributed". Which leads me to believe that it's not as reliable as it seems.--Filmomusico (talk) 00:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        @Filmomusico: I'm confused. The full quote you're using says "There is consensus that Common Sense Media is generally reliable for entertainment reviews. As an advocacy organization, Common Sense Media is biased or opinionated, and its statements should generally be attributed." Doesn't this mean that a film page review is exactly how we should use it? BuySomeApples (talk) 02:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        @BuySomeApples: And the second sentence states that As an advocacy organization, Common Sense Media is biased or opinionated, and its statements should generally be attributed. Which means, we shouldn't take their words for granted, or use them as a WP:RS.--Filmomusico (talk) 02:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        @Filmomusico: It's saying that you should use them for entertainment reviews (movies and stuff) BUT that you should attribute controversial statements to them (so say like, "according to CSM" that way people know where the info is coming from). If you want, we can make sure to attribute them properly when that source gets added to the article. Does that work? BuySomeApples (talk) 02:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        @BuySomeApples: My problem with CSM is that it uses one-sentence reviews, such as here. I can't call '80s pulp novel gets creepy with evil adults, incest. as a review. A review to me is more broad then one tiny sentence, if you understand what I mean by that. --Filmomusico (talk) 02:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        @Filmomusico: Oh I see what the problem is! The info in the review is spread out in different sections, which makes it hard at a glance. That sentence at the top isn't the whole review (it's a summary I guess). There's an overview section and then other sections (like "What's The Story?" "Is It Any Good?" and "Talk To Your Kids About..."). It's a weird layout imo but I think it's meant to make it easier for parents. Judgy parents from the look of it. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        @BuySomeApples: Yes, and that's why no matter how you attribute, it still looks like as if somebody said something, aka blog. I don't know how consensus came to a decision that it is reliable (I should look into it further (Perhaps, either I am missing something, or they didn't look at the source close enough, or both)). Either way, imo I would use CSM same way as we use IMDb. That's where it should be. Our sources need to be neutral, not biased. With that said, I need to add that even though Wikipedia is an advocacy group of some kind, we, first of all, building an encyclopedia, and spreading CSM will be counter intuitive to our goals as a project, if you understand what I am saying. --Filmomusico (talk) 03:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Right @Filmomusico:, I think part of the problem is that notability doesn't mean that the source has to be in only "unbiased" sources. What matters is how we use them. It's kind of the nature of reviews to be biased. Sometimes even famous critics are wrong about movies (like anyone who panned the original Star Wars!). We're not handing down critics' opinions like the voice of God, but we can say that critics noticed the movie (and that makes it notable). CSM might be biased, but it's a major source that uses legitimate editorial processes for reviews. This means that the movie made a significant impact etc, and that the review can be trusted as being from a well-known outlet. I guess it's ultimately a matter of opinion though and I get where you're coming from with it. BuySomeApples (talk) 03:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        @BuySomeApples: Yeah, it might be a legit source, but we as an encyclopedia don't need film ratings in our film articles. It seems that CSM, unlike other sites, is a Parental Guidance site, which literally says if that film is ok to watch for say 13-year-olds. If I would want to check out film rating before going to a movie, I will go to CSM, not Wikipedia. If I will want to read something about the film (besides the rating), I will choose Wikipedia, and every other reader probably will be of the same opinion.--Filmomusico (talk) 03:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        @Filmomusico: I totally get what you're saying. Technically though WP:Manual of Style/Film does say that including film reviews and aggregators is encouraged, and CSM counts as that. Wikipedia isn't a source in itself, it's a collection of information from other places (including CSM sometimes). I think we're way off topic by now, because the point is that CSM is considered reliable for reviews by Wikipedia and that means it counts towards this film's notability. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Again, your opinion does not override the consensus that it is a Reliable Site and is listed as such. Disagree all you want, but a consensus is a consensus. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:21, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A malformed header was fixed in this AfD. The nominator also did not sign their post. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Donaldd23 -- meets review threshold. One source being referenced less often than other sources has no bearing on whether or not this subject is notable, and as is pointed out, CSM is considered relevant for this. Suggesting that it has only been cited once and the Austin Chronicle is cited more so we can't use it is a sort of bizarre argument. matt91486 (talk) 04:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Quick note here: The comments about bias and so on with sites typically means that it should be avoided for statements of fact or controversial statements but can be used for things like reviews. So for example, you can use CSM for a film review but you shouldn't use it to back up information about say, depression in childhood, a historical event, or a school shooting (news, politics, health/medicine, and so on). Reviews are usually just the reviewer's opinion about the film itself and tend not to include anything that would be seen as controversial. Now it is possible for a site to be seen as completely unusable, but to accomplish this the outlet has to be known for major levels of misinformation like the Daily Mail. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per WP:NFP, however, I would be willing to change my viewpoint if an expert on the topic adds more sources or recreates the article later and can provide more sources. One would figure that something attached to Ryan Reynolds would have more out there that can be found. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 17:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It looks like the sources are reliable according to consensus. I respect that the nominator disagrees but that's not a good enough reason to delete the page. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BuySomeApples: Looking at the sources that @ReaderofthePack: provided, I am in a position to remove the nomination. Good job guys and gals, and happy editing! :)--Filmomusico (talk) 02:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see the nomination is being withdrawn, I agree just looking at article in its current state, the film appears notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:51, 23 August 2021 (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.