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. (non-admin closure) czar · · 06:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Billi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NOTFILM at minimum and probably GNG as well (any sources that do exist do not give "Substantial coverage") - The film seems to have been sold and marketed on the notability of its cast but notability is not inherited, if it were to miraculously get distribution and substantial coverage related to that it could be recreated but that looks to be highly unlikely, Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 06:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It meets WP:NFILM for its historical significance as Scotland's first CG animated movie and Sean Connery's final film. it also meets WP:GNG because of the considerable press interest, mainly in the Scottish press but also in the USA. I've added some more references. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Its the film equivalent of a Vanity Press, by a couple who happen to have the money and contacts to push it to a stage where it cost staggeringly more than an equivalent length CGI tv episode/tv movie yet delivered a worse product. The Hartmans have a PR company so plenty of means to push mention of it into many sources but none of them cover it in more than a superficial way (hence my assertion they do not produce substantial coverage). It will be forgotten as Scotlands first (if that's true as the claim originates with the Hartmans) and won't even be counted as its first unless it gets a release, as for Connery's last film; mention it in his bio but his notability is not inherited by this film. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 09:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a notable topic as demonstrated by the significant coverage that Colapeninsula has now included in the article. I find the coverage from Variety and The Huffington Post particularly noteworthy. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  See my comment to Colapeninsula above. Tessa Hartman and her Daughter both write for Huffington so it's neither independent nor unbiased. The Variety review is nearly short enough it could have been tweeted (especially when the plot summary which makes up 50% of the review is removed) neither are particularly noteworthy in this case. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  These were not the only sources; Colapeninsula did an excellent job showing that this topic "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Please be aware of escalation of commitment; dismissing the Variety review when it is more than "a trivial mention" (especially when it gets attention from The Scotsman) is indicative of that. It is perfectly acceptable to concede and withdraw, as I suspect the consensus will not build in your favor. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  In what way is the Variety review "substantial coverage" when it consists of 520 characters (not words. 530 words would be substantial coverage) of review and 700 characters of plot outline? The Scotsman takes this further taking two lines from the variety review and adding a similar (~700) number of words in plot and cast

  . I'm not sure why you want me to withdraw, it's probably the first time in many years of submitting AfDs someone has asked me to do that. I don't intend to though, as I don't believe the article provides any significant encyclopaedic value no matter how many of these sources are brought in to it, as I say above the Hartmans like many other PR companies can easily produce such "noise" in regard to the products they are trying to push whether it's snakeoil, or a film , but delivering unbiased quality sources of "Information" is another thing entirely. If consensus is against me this time, I can wait I've seen consensus change much more radically to AfDs submitted 2,5,8 years later - I can be patient until that time if I have to be. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  The definition of significant coverage does not involve actual word count; see WP:SIGCOV. The point is, Variety is a prominent publication that reviewed the film. That is a point in favor of establishing it as a stand-alone topic on Wikipedia. Colapeninsula included numerous other sources that also provide significant coverage. WP:NOTFILM says that WP:GNG suffices for the majority of topics and that the specific notability guidelines for films are considered if there is not much coverage readily found. I do not believe WP:NOTFILM applies here because we can find a variety of reports online with ease. I do agree that The Huffington Post has a promotional tone to it, but in such cases, I prefer to mine basic information (especially about the making of the film) to include in the Wikipedia article, sans the tone. I mention "escalation of commitment" because the state of the article has changed since you nominated it for deletion, yet you seem unfazed in your initial stance. I've seen other AfDs happen similarly, and I've also seen closures with a bit less coverage than what we have here, which is why I am confident this will not be deleted. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  No it doesn't but the point of significant coverage is that there should be enough information in there to write a rounded article that hasn't been demonstrated either before or after Colapeninsula's adittions. You refer to "mining basic information" and that's exactly the problem here - we shouldn't have to "mine" information - the coverage should be substantial enough that we're not looking for the one sentence out of 20 or 30 that differs from the 21 or 31 in all the other sources (The Scotsman source is a prime example of this) then there's all the other sourcing problems - The date it *was* shown is sourced to an article published before that date, the only positive review listed is to an SPS, It has a controversy section that isn't really a controversy it's the creator spouting in a another paper she has written for. You can quickly whittle away a lot of the sources because they fail to make any substantial coverage of the subject. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I only referred to "mining" in regard to The Huffington Post specifically. Significant coverage means: "Sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." We have multiple sources about this film that are more than trivial mentions. I doubt that this article will be well-rounded, but the topic is referred to enough times for there to be a compact article. Not all topics have articles that could aspire to Good or Featured status at their most extensive. Concerns about sourcing and use of section headings are matters of article improvement, not existence. (I do agree about the "Controversy" not being appropriate per MOS:FILM#Controversies, but as these guidelines say, "isolated criticisms may be briefly summarized".) I think there are too many sources to make the unsubstantiated claim that the filmmakers' PR firm pressured them all to write about their movie. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Clearly notable, extended coverage of this project in multiple sources over a span of years as Colapeninsula has shown and a GNews search of <"Sir Billi" Connery> bears out. The nominator's criteria for what qualifies as substantive coverage are not consistent with those generally applied to films. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I searched Access World News for additional coverage about the film, and I found this, a 2,000-word article by The Sunday Times. Most of the article is behind a paywall but can be seen via TinyPaste here. Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 21:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  In your last comment you said " I think there are too many sources to make the unsubstantiated claim that the filmmakers' PR firm pressured them all to write about their movie." then you present this source. The UK's most significant newspaper interviewing a non-notable first time director, who is self financing a film - this doesn't happen for anyone else. At any one time there are thousands of films in the same boat and have been for the past 30 years, yet I have never seen this for any other unknown and unproven director (and know many known and proven directors who still wouldn't get it) but when your wife runs Hartman media, is an editor at the Glasgow Herald and Evening times , has written for the Daily Record , and Scotsman, have a daughter who writes for huffington post, and your wife apparently has a friendship with the Journalist writing about you [1] you can - Chris Jones should add that as a key skill to his film making handbook. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  From what I can tell, Sean Connery's involvement is a reason for news coverage of this film. If you want to claim notability is not inherited, WP:NRVE says, "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition." You've mentioned a few connections for which we should apply WP:SELFPUB and especially make sure that the Wikipedia article has an impartial tone. However, the significant coverage goes beyond the connections that you mention. There will be such cases where the creators of some work will push for their creation to be known, and the question is one of independent coverage of said work. If it has "caught on", as I believe it has here, then Wikipedia will use that coverage to establish an article for the topic and ensure a neutral point view. Not only is there a reception, there is a negative one. A Wikipedia article with that proper tone would not be anything the filmmakers care to have (unless you buy into Barnum's statement about publicity). Erik (talk | contribs) 23:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Clearly meets WP:Notability (film) through WP:SIGCOV and additionally in meeting specialty caveats under WP:NF#Other evidence of notabilityfor its unique accomplishments: Verifiable as Scotland's first CGI animated feature film AND in being the final acting role for Sean Connery. As notability requires verifiable evidence, these have been provided and, even though not a requirement of notability, the article has been improved to better serve the encyclopedia... thanks to the diligence of Colapeninsula. If the nominator believes the sources are unsuitable, or the specialty facts are not verifiable, he may take them to the reliable sources noticeboard. Warming up in southern California, but there's WP:SNOW in the air. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it really essential to ask the question at RSN whether sources which haven't seen the film such as slashfilm who saw the directors showreel and Flayrah,or the Express who saw a trailer, are reliable criticism of the film? Or to ask whether it's suitable for two sources from before an event are used to cite a claim that it actually happened on that date as we use hollywoodreporter and the napa valley register to do? Or the fact that we use multiple sources which are variations of the single Variety review such as the sun and The scotsman - These should be regarded as a single source for the purposes of notability. What about the use of Selfpublished Sources and Blogs as Review material they're not accepted anywhere else unless the writers are recognised experts, is that the case for any of these? [2][3][4] But if you still feel it needs to be asked, I'm always willing to do that. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• What might be more helpful when you choose to address every comment contrary to your own, is if you might actually respond to this film meeting specialty caveats under WP:NF#Other evidence of notability for its unique accomplishments: IE Verifiable as Scotland's first CGI animated feature film AND being the final acting role for Sean Connery. Those caveats are met and even if you feel it lacks in sigcov, its historic notability is unrebutted. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I asked a question about one of of your points, that I should take sources that were not reliable for the claims to RSN. This doesn't mean that I wasn't considering your other point's but trying to find definitive answers for them - two questions can we definitively prove that no CGI animated feature films were made in Scotland prior to 2012? There certainly were some CGI animated films made in Scottish animation houses - Axis animation in Glasgow did some of Anna and the Moods though it's considered solely an Icelandic production (I guess in the way that work done by Rough Draft doesn't make a film partly Korean, the reality is that most animation projects will be international these days though. To fully verify that claim you'd have to go through every film festival and see if a Scottish animator had ever submitted a CGI feature film that wasn't subsequently picked up to become notable - the sources cited have just repeated the Hartmann's claim that it is the first. I believe this to be a Red Flag claim. On the second point about Sean's final acting role - again per WP:CRYSTAL we don't know what he will do tomorrow he said he wasn't acting after the League of Extraordinary Gentleman then went on to do both this and the bond video game - He hasn't ruled out acting again but has admitted it would have to be something compelling to get him to do it. If he does do something new (or if something he has done previously but remains unfinished appears) would this suddenly become non-notable under that caveat of notability basing your decision on it appears that it would but notability is not temporary. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow Keep and close - Clearly passes the "General principles" section of WP:MOVIE. Multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As above. Alborzagros (talk) 13:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as above. JJ98 (Talk) 20:55, 24 April 2013 (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.