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. Snow close, nominator appears to have withdrawn. n DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday Was a Lie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Does not appear to meet notability requirements. Film meets few, if any, of the requirements listed for movie notability at WP:MOVIE (no wide release, did not have two or more full-length reviews in national magazines, no obvious historical significance, etc.). Article was nominated for deletion in the past; the Keep result was reportedly skewed by socks. Only two editors appear to be actively editing this page through various sock accounts; one of them has bee banned completely; there does not appear to be any wide interest in the subject matter outside of the one or two editors who regularly edit the page.¡ǝıʞʞǝɹʇ ʇuǝıɔuɐ (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If I understand the rules correctly this does not meet notability.Slatersteven (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This editor's !vote was changed below. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The film is clearly notable, having been reviewed in Variety, which qualifies as significant coverage in an independent reliable source, and having won some awards at film festivals, albeit not major ones.

  Although the nominator is correct that a large number of edits to this article were made by the socks described in this SPI complaint, and by myself under this and a previous account (User:H Debussy-Jones), there have also been been numerous contributions by well-known and established editors.[1], indicating a general acceptance of the film as notable.

  Also, it needs to be pointed out that the nominator is a brand-new account, only two days old[2], which raises the possibility that this is a retaliatory nomination by the very sockfarm used as the excuse for the nomination: if I can't edit it, then nobody can being a negative aspect of ownership. I would suggest that the article be kept, and that User:AncientTrekkie be checkusered. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that this AfD was filed just 14 minutes after one of the sockpuppets mentioned aboved blanked their talk page[3] after having their request for unblocking turned down 3 times[4][5][6], further evidence that this may be a retaliatory nomination. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That aside does this film meet the criteria for notaility? It seems to fail them all but please point out where I ere.Slatersteven (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Explanations have been provided below. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it (do correct me if I'm am wrong) to be notable a film should (but does not need to be) Widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics (it seems to fail this). to have recived a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking (it again seems to fail this one). Has the film been selected for preservation in a national archive (I do not beleive it is)? I also do not bleive that it is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program (but please correct me if I am wrong). So it fails 4 or the 5 cirteria for notability (and I am being geneous with the other). How therfore can it be notable if it fails to meet this many indicators of notability?Slatersteven (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Notification made to Wikiproject Films. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The part of WP:MOVIE that is being referred to here states "The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." The article refers to at least three reviews. RadManCF (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Question I think the important phrase there is "nationally known critics". If there are full length reviews by nationally known critics other than Variety, they should be included in the article and I would revise my deletion nom. As the article is written this film doesn't meet a single one of the standards listed at WP:MOVIE. So if we don't delete at the very least we should bring it up to notability guidelines.¡ǝıʞʞǝɹʇ ʇuǝıɔuɐ (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Question what was this films release schedual? Has it been wdiely distributed?Slatersteven (talk) 22:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Reviews in notable venues such as Variety, Film Threat, The Epoch Times, capsules in LA Times & Weekly, other articles such as this one... And on top of that, multiple notable personnel involved, and released by a notable distributor. No reason even to invoke WP:MOVIE, it passes WP's general definition of notability, which WP:MOVIE expands, not restricts. Dekkappai (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then Keep, but needs to be rewritten to establish notability. It's not neutrality that's at issue as much as notability. For example as it reads the article does not include full-length reviews from "two or more nationally known reviewers" and it doesn't establish any type of wide release which are supposed to be criteria. If the movie had those things (which I'm not convinced of) then they need to be included.

Also accuracy is in question because there are inconsistencies. Variety review is the most notable review, but the remainder of "Reception" section is wierd: "During the film's earlier festival run it received generally positive reviews." But then the reviews listed as having occurred during the "earlier festival run" include 3 reviews that it looks like were written during the theatrical run according to the cites. Then it says the film got "generally positive reviews" during its festival run "with certain notable exceptions." However, no exceptions are provided. So on second thought maybe there is some COI going on here? I think it needs fresh editors if we're keeping.¡ǝıʞʞǝɹʇ ʇuǝıɔuɐ (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point -- the reception section was subject to a good amount of back-and-forth editing as the sockpuppets tried to put the film in the best possible light, and other editors, including myself, tried to keep the section as accurate and neutral as possible. This is almost certainly the cause of the discontinuities that you point out. I agree that fresh editors with fresh eyes would be a good idea. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, meets both WP:NF and WP:N. Just do some clean up any POV/tonal issues from the sockpuppetry, and maybe protect it awhile to keep them from coming back. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've already removed the alterations to the article made by the sockpuppets, who downplayed the mixed Variety review in favor of reviews from less prestigious outlets. I'd welcome additional eyes on the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am all for an admin closing out this nomination with a Keep and I will then remove the badge from the page so we can collectively attempt to improve articles accuracy.¡ǝıʞʞǝɹʇ ʇuǝıɔuɐ (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before that happens, would you mind if a checkuser takes a look at you? The timeline of events I mentioned above, and the newness of your accounts certainly looks ... convenient, let's say. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, my understanding is that because another editor has voted to delete, you cannot withdraw this nomination. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this has had coverage in The Guardian, Variety, and L.A. Weekly. That meets the notability requirement. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK as we have two reviews from at least two well known sources I see no reason not to keep this, change my vote to keep.Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Has reviews in national media, has a nice official-looking poster. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per significant coverage that enables the film to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Clearly across the threshold, in my opinion. Erik (talk) 22:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Per well-established notability. With a good faith presumption that the nominator might not be a disruptive puppet or SPA, I would suggest that the new account User:AncientTrekkie peruse WP:N and WP:GNG before in good faith believing that the indicators at WP:NF are actually mandates instead of simply being a means to encourage a diligent search for existing sources. And further, I might ask he also study WP:ATD to better understand that is any preceived issue is correctable, that is a reason to fix it... not delete it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think this can be closed per WP:SNOW -- the nominator has effectively withdrawn the nomination, and the only "delete" !vote has changed to "keep." Seems like a good candidate for a non-admin closure, if someone not involved is willing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2010 (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.