Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Little Pill

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. The discussion veered of into tangents at times, and also attracted higher than normal attention from accounts with relatively few contributions to other areas of the project. However, even giving greater weight to established editors, the sense of the discussion is that the sourcing located shows the film is notable. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One Little Pill

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

Following the AfD discussion and subsequent deletion of the "Sinclair Method", I'm trying to clean up the mess several SPAs did to alcohol-related articles, obviously trying to promote this particular doctor's work. No independent sources are listed for this film, which blatantly fails WP:NFF. Of sources gathered after a simple search, only 2 are reliable and independent, including the Boston Globe (which mentions it in passing in an article about another topic) and Forbes (which only quotes the main actress in an article about another topic as well). The problems with the sources provided in the article itself should be all too obvious for any experienced editor. Thank you, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sorry nominator, as an experienced editor I need to share that something covering a problematic topic is generally not an issue and make a special note with its premiere 24 August 2014 at the HollyShorts Film Festival, using WP:NFF is inapplicable. IE: Hollywood Times is independent and confirms its 2014 premiere. And too, a film need not be the sole topic of any source, just so long as the source offers more-than-trivial information for our readers. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts: Year:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL); Filmmmaker:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL); Producer:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL); Studio:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Keep per the film's production meeting WP:NF through Boston Globe, Krypton Radio, Epic Times 1, Epic Times 2, The Atlantic, YLE Television etal. Yes the thing needs attention to address tone. No, I do not generally see a notability in a producer speaking about their films, but rather in multiple independent reliable sources making the editorial choice to cover those words. I would think that at the very minimum, this could be spoken of and sourced in the article of its producer Claudia Christian and redirected. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I wrote most of the article on One Little Pill. Googling for 'sinclair method' today produced 1,010,000 hits. Example Why Isn’t The Sinclair Method Used More Often? By Michael D. on June 3, 2015 so people are beginning to hear about the treatment. The treatment was only licensed by the British Government late last year. The film 'One Little Pill' is designed to be a documentary that gets more people and doctors to use the method. The film is coming out on DVD this month. With luck an independent review will be written to provide an independent reference. Andrew Swallow (talk) 11:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Swallow: Pardon, but the method being covered in this documentary is not an AFD issue, for in Wikipedia, a film's content does not determine notability or lack. That the film might have more coverage in the future is a nice hope, but irrelevant to an AFD discussion. That it might spread a helpful message is also irrelevant. What matters is existing coverage and, as demonstrated above, we have enough to meet inclusion criteria. I suggest you read WP:NPOV and tone down the article's content and add the more proper sources offered above, and remove those used that fail WP:RS. Wikipedia is not here to promote anything... just report on it neutrally as sourced in external media Thanks, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I essentially agree with the nominator here. With some caveats Naltrexone can be useful to some people suffering from alcohol dependence; this is not seriously in doubt. However, the present article is essentially self-promotion. No one reputable calls this the Sinclair method; as with that article, this one is a bald-faced attempt to promote a non-standard term for a relatively common treatment for marketing purposes, and is doing so in Wikipedia's voice, which is unconscionable. The documentary itself does not appear particularly notable, but if its notability -- for itself, not for the treatment it is attempting to sell -- could be established, I would support keeping it in heavily modified form, i.e. without references to the so-called Sinclair method (and instead a simple reference to Naltrexone), and instead dominated by the same general information typically included in other documentary articles, e.g. critical response, awards won, etc. The kind of stuff that establishes the documentary as notable. Because right now, it seems like a PR release for Sinclair and/or some pharmaceutical company. Eniagrom (talk) 14:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please be aware that we're not discussing the therapeutic use of Naltrexone - which is not called "Sinclair Method", by the way - we're discussing the notability of this film. The encyclopaedia was plagued with unreferenced claims about this method, all made under blatantly COI SPAs which sought to promote the use of this invented terminology on the encyclopaedia. I'm trying to stop the pushing of this agenda, and this is the last piece of the puzzle as far as I'm aware. Please do not stray the discussion to whether the "Sinclair Method" is a thing or not. That was already determined in another AfD. As you can see, there are several accounts watching the relevant pages and trying to revert my clean-up. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. In an uncensored Wikipedia, the truth or not of a film's topic has nothing to do with notability. We need not care one whit about the truth or not of a film's assertions, as notability or lack is not determined by article content, but rather by available coverage. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is a mess and fails WP:GNG. Wiki92man (^Talk/_Stalk) 16:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC) per WP:SOCKSTRIKE Kraxler (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but when sources have been presented specicfically showing the film's production as meeting WP:GNG, your simple statement that it somehow does not leaves me wondering if you actualy looked at them. I agree the article is a mess, but that is a addressable issue which does not require deletion. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an addition reference giving the names of the producers and a quote from a review of the film. Andrew Swallow (talk) 05:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Schmidt. Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Applicable issues have been addressed. Quality of entry is irrelevant along lines of deletion. Antiwesley (talk) 18:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The synopsis has been rewritten and the subject has been reworded to lean towards being more an informative article than an advertisement 01:30, 8 August 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Decardo111279 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 8 August 2015‎ — Decardo111279 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

What? With all due respect, the article as it stands currently is just as problematic as it was when it was listed. The "Synopsis" section in particular is blantant advocacy. Use of the non-standard term "Sinclair method" is rife. This most certainly is not an improved article.Eniagrom (talk) 10:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Eniagrom: A film's content does not determine notability or lack. Hypothetically, it could be the most blatant hodgepodge of fringe or lies, but as Wikipedia is uncensored we do not judge the film by what it says or does not say, but by its production having enough coverage to meet WP:NF. Please read WP:FILMPLOT. We report what the plot actually is and leave personal opinion to external reviewers. My point is that we also have articles on the quite fictional Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy. Blatant fictions. So what? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my original !vote, I would not be opposed to keeping this article in a substantially different form, which would include significantly sidelining WP:FRINGE elements from the article. Your comment about censorship is not relevant here, it basically comes down to undue weight. A documentary about moon landing conspiracy theorists can (and should) mention their theories in the plot synopsis, but not with a tone that implies (with WP's voice) that they are right (to address your analogy: we do not claim that the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy are real in WP's voice). But that's honestly beside the point, because I disagree fundamentally with your contention that the film is notable. Rags like the Hollywood Reporter are essentially industry press release pumps: they will talk about anything they are asked to talk about regardless of whether there's any actual buzz surrounding it. While they are not unreliable per se, as sources used to establish notability they are very problematic, since that would imply that anyone who pays enough money to pump out enough press releases can basically guarantee coverage in WP, quite an SEO feat! The Boston Globe editorial only mentions the film in passing, I don't think it qualifies as anything but a supporting source. Epic Times is a blog. The Atlantic barely mentions One Little Pill and is fundamentally about Naltrexone, which as I mentioned earlier is notable in its own right -- but as you correctly mentioned, the notability of the subject matter of a documentary does not establish its notability. As far as I'm concerned, sources available cover this documentary not for its own sake but either because of Naltrexone or Claudia Christian. I see a lot of obvious attempts at drumming up buzz around this film -- normal for any new film, obviously -- but essentially no "independent" momentum. Eniagrom (talk) 09:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You opened your response above by seeming to agree that options exist that do not require deletion... and I note that such options would simply require tagging for issues, and not a flat out deletion. Under WP:V information MUST be verifiable, and even if brief in content, we are to use accepted reliable sources to do so. Please read WP:NEWSBLOG before disparaging Epic Times... and if you feel Hollywood Reporter, a publication widely accepted herein as suitable for sourcing film articles and establishing notability, is actually unreliable or not independent of the film article(s) being cited, take that those assertions to WP:RSN and ask about it there... as an unsupported personal opinion is unhelpful to discussion based upon community accepted policy and guideline. A little clarification: not wishing coverage "because of Naltrexone or Claudia Christian" is a non-argument, as what motivates coverage is immaterial, and applicable guideline WP:GNG instructs us a topic being sourced does not have to be the sole topic covered by a source just so long as the source addresses "thee topic directly and in detail, so that 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" Point here is that "significant coverage" does not mean "substantial coverage" (IE: WP:SUBSTANTIAL is not a guideline mandate). Thank you. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually watched the film? The synopis covers the content of the film, as this is a topic that the film covers in depth it is going to be mentioned. If you have edits you would like to see then please list them but only after viewing the film. I am struggling to see why there is a witch hunt on this topic? Decardo111279 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.70.255.215 (talk) 12:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is irrelevant, I'm afraid. We don't decide whether a film is notable based on whether we've seen it or not, we base it on what reliable sources say. My contention is that this film is not notable and that this article (like others before it that have already been deleted) is being used as a platform for certain single-issue editors to promote the brand "Sinclair Method" on a site that has a huge impact on search engine rankings. Eniagrom (talk) 09:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So the main objection of Eniagrom and FoCuSandLeArN to the article is that a webpage on a documentary about The Sinclair Method mentions The Sinclair Method. The treatment is not a Wikipedia invention as use of the Method in Scandinavia, book and academic papers describing it precede the article and film (by decades). This is a very weird objection. Andrew Swallow (talk) 03:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are two issues here. One is that the film is fundamentally not notable, which the reason I voted to delete it. But assuming that that were not the case, the film's advocacy should not be Wikipedia's advocacy. Right now the Synopsis section of this article reads like WP is trying to sell us the so-called Sinclair method, which is extremely problematic. Saying "The film advocates the use of Naltrexone (which it calls the Sinclair method) as a remedy for alcoholism, focusing on the personal experiences of Claudia Christian with the remedy" is quite literally all that needs to be said. The clinical uses of Naltrexone, its efficacy, the preponderance of alcoholism-related deaths, and all the other coatrack stuff this article currently features is dealt with quite sufficiently and in much greater detail in other articles. A wikilink is absolutely sufficient. I don't want to assume bad faith, but the only reason I can see that anyone would disagree with that is if they desperately wanted all the right keywords in the same article for SEO purposes -- and since we have had a large number of SPAs pushing the absolutely non-standard "Sinclair method" nomenclature on WP for some time now, this seems like a prudent assumption. If we don't delete this article, it needs to be seriously reworked: from an advocacy and branding piece for a long-standing alcoholism remedy to one that actually discusses the documentary itself (not its content) in the same terms as the majority of RSs do. Right now there are very few in-depth mentions of this documentary anywhere in RS-land. But if we could find enough of them to establish notability, we would need to talk about e.g. how critics responded, how audiences responded, box office numbers, that sort of thing. Not a cranked-up biased rewording of Naltrexone#Alcohol dependence. Eniagrom (talk) 09:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote "the film's advocacy should not be Wikipedia's advocacy", and it is not. As Wikipedia is itself self-admittedly unreliable, it "advocates" nothing except the sharing of sourced information, and being written of in Wikipedia does not make anything true or false. Under WP:FILMPLOT we simply and neutrally report what the plot is, not any editor's personal opinion about how bizarre he feels the plot is, though you may certainly offer suggestions on modifying the current plot on the article's talk page. Please re-read WP:UNCENSORED and WP:CONTN, and try to stop making this film discussion to be about the drug Naltrexone or something called "The Sinclair Method". This discussion is about A FILM, and not about the truth or not of those terms. If you have sources called the film crappola, offer and cite them in its reception section for balance. You may personally disagree with the film's premise, but its truth or factuality is not the issue. See Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The original nominator seems to have an issue with the content of the documentary. This article is about the movie itself and the article factually presents what the movie is about. I feel the film is notable as it was produced and directed by Adam Schomer and narrated by Claudia Christian, it premiered at the HollyShorts Film Festival in 2014, has since been featured and won an award at the Albuquerque film festival in 2015. This film is very good representative of the independent documentary genre. What's more the film also has reviews on imdb and rotten tomatoes. I vote for Keep. Thx1138az (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)24.56.2.134 (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2015 (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.