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 Selective Merge/Redirect to Paul Atherton. 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. bd2412 T 00:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Our London Lives (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)

Non-notable film. Promotional article created and inflated by COI editor whose many edits focus on promoting London filmmaker Paul Atherton. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:27, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The author of the article Amanda Paul declared her COI with the editor ReaderOfThePack 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 Museum of London as cited and on that basis is therefore notable. Itsallnewtome (talk) 20:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 02:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lacks independent coverage. If the museum thing was that significant you'd expect to see coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The film was taken into the Museum of London's collection through an exhibition entitled "Recording A Life" where it was screened, and did receive coverage in the media including on London Live News. 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. Itsallnewtome (talk) 12:09, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Talking about your own film is not independent coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Surely if the show "Recording A Life" wasn't of news interest, Atherton wouldn't have been invited onto the News. Any Independent 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. Video diary incorrectly in my opinion, redirects to Vlog on Wikipedia and should in fact redirect to Diary 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.Itsallnewtome (talk) 08:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Selective Merge/Redirect to Paul Atherton. On its own, the work fails WP:SIGCOV 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 the article on the artist would help that article by showing he meets WP:NARTIST, so the content would be valuable on the article on Paul Atherton.4meter4 (talk) 17:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment 4meter4 At Girth Summit's suggestion, I am attmepting to tidy up Paul Atherton's article and researching offline material. Coverage was previously found in respect to Our London Lives in Time Out Magazine & the Evening Standard 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 Wikipedia about Museum Collections and Notability an interesting article on the subject back in 2010 "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-Wikipedia collaboration." makes the issue clear, though it surprised me that there have been no further developments on this issue for nine years?Itsallnewtome (talk) 08:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 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 not a review than it would not count towards WP:SIGCOV. 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 WP:VERIFIABILITY.4meter4 (talk) 11:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 4meter4 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 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 Museum of London, 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 Samuel Pepys diary? It would seem to be applicable according to WP:Twitter-ELItsallnewtome (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Itsallnewtome: WP:NARTIST 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 museums. However, that is not the policy currently in use and, in the absence of a consensus based guideline, we must use WP:GNG 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 WP:SIGCOV. The artwork being reviewed would count.4meter4 (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @4meter4: 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 should be evaluated on their own merits" WP:MOVIE. As this is the only Video-Diary in the Museum of London Collection which houses over a million objects, it thus makes it a unique proposition and therefore made notable by the academic acceptance of selection. Itsallnewtome (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Itsallnewtome: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 evidence of the work's importance as dictated by other core policies like Wikipedia:Reliable source, WP:VERIFIABILITY, and WP:GNG. 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 Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and see if others would support that interpretation. Who knows, you may find consensus to support you there.4meter4 (talk) 20:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @4meter4: Which appears oxymoronic to me. The statement opens with "Some films that do not pass the above tests" which includes the tests of WP:GNG, WP:Reliable. Are there are any excpetional films, that do not comply with the "above tests" and if so what were the conditions they passed on?Itsallnewtome (talk) 08:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Itsallnewtome: 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 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. The editors there will know the answer to that question. Hope that helps.4meter4 (talk) 09:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Selective Merge/Redirect to Paul Atherton per User:4meter4. 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 Delete. Otr500 (talk) 11:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments; 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 NARTIST work with those such as GNG 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 the general notability guidelines 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 display, even if Tweeter was accepted, would be a primary source (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 dead link (action for M.E.) which doesn't help advance notability. -- Otr500 (talk) 11:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Otr500: 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 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? Itsallnewtome (talk) 13:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC) Itsallnewtome (talk) 14:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Selective Merge/Redirect to Paul Atherton. He seems to have a different film in the BFI archive (also pretty large), and this film is in the Museum of London's collection. I wouldn't call it being included amongst 5,000 hours of material -too- notable. - ChrisWar666 (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2019 (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.