Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Connected Baby

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 speedy keep. Of note is that the nomination does not provide a valid rationale for deletion, and that if a new article is to be created, a title such as Connected Baby (2015 film) may be used. Furthermore, the WP:COI concerns herein may need to be further addressed. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Connected Baby

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

Name clash with upcoming project connected baby, by film co-creator Suzanne Zeedyk Joni Bendall, Head of Social Media, Suzanne Zeedyk Ltd. (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Joni.Bendall You want to delete this article because your employer is planning on using the name for a different project? Crow^Caw 22:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Affirmative. You'll have to forgive me, I am new here - having read through, I didn't think my intention contravened community guidelines. My employer is co-creator and owner of the rights to the film the article describes. As you rightly mentioned, the name is being used for an upcoming project. Joni Bendall, Head of Social Media, Suzanne Zeedyk Ltd. (talk) 22:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Joni.Bendall That is actually not a reason to delete this article. If the new project ends up having an article here as well, it will be disambiguated so that both articles can exist. Crow^Caw 22:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Keep #1 due to the above~~. Striking vote since it doesnt qualify. No opinion on the article itself, just the nom struck me as out of process. Crow^Caw 15:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is actually a bit of a concern here about this film potentially failing WP:NFILM. Of the sources on the article, only one of them is actually a WP:RS that can show notability, as the other two are pretty much WP:PRIMARY sources since one is a notification of a screening by the film festival itself and the other is from an organization that funded the film. The original deletion rationale is invalid, but it actually brings up a pretty big concern of notability overall and may still end up being deleted... which also casts a bit of a doubt of notability on the other project that is supposed to be added. I'd probably suggest leaving this open over the concerns of notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sourcing isn't the strongest, but there is enough here to warrant a keep. If there was an article on Zeedyk herself, I'd recommend that this get merged and redirected to her, but there isn't. However I do want to stress very, very strongly that I would highly recommend that Joni.Bendall either not create it herself or that she go through AfC to make the article because of the strong COI here. I'd also really recommend that you read over our guidelines on editing in general, conflict of interest, notability, and so on. As a COI editor you will be expected to know our guidelines better than a casual editor, as every edit you make will be heavily scrutinized. This may occasionally seem like overkill, but Wikipedia has had a very long history of people trying to use it to promote themselves, either by editing themselves or by hiring people to edit for them as part of a publicity crew. You will need to be able to state/follow policy without misquoting or misinterpreting it, which is especially important because again- we have a history of people doing just that in an attempt to keep an article. Sometimes it's intentional, sometimes it's not, but doing this is a surefire way to ensure that people assume that you are only here to promote. In the cases of where it's unintentional, it's had the unfortunate effect of having people write off editors completely and sometimes people can get pretty brusque in their speech. Sometimes it can even affect how much people are willing to go to help you. I wish it was otherwise, but it happens and I've seen pages get deleted that might have otherwise been salvageable. I know this all sounds a little harsh and a little WP:BITE-y, but I really want to stress how important it is that you go over our guidelines as a whole. Some of it pertains to this article, as it had some fairly promotional WP:PEACOCK type phrasing in it, but I also want to give you a little head's up on the other project that you are intending to add to Wikipedia, as I didn't see much out there that didn't pertain to the 2011 film. Just because a project exists doesn't automatically mean that it belongs on Wikipedia (WP:ITEXISTS), so you may want to be cautious about adding the new article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep invalid AFD and close per cogent analysis by Tokyogirl79 and the obvious WP:COI of nominator... who should go study WP:PRIMER and WP:NAU and more importantly WP:DEL#REASON. As this 2011 film already exists, your production company will have to settle on Connected Baby (2015 film) (or whatever release year) if or when the newer project merits an article. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the apparent obvious mistake made listing this under AfD. I did so in good faith, after examining WP:DEL#REASON. I would still argue that this article has potential grounds for deletion under lack of notability, but it is clear that there is some doubt to that. As it stands, understanding that from the POV of more experienced users than I the article is not suitable for deletion, I shall endeavour to ensure that the article is more accurate and follows guidelines on promotional phrasing.
additionally, we'd would like to make the following 3 observations, in the final stages of this discussion:
1. My employer did not create the original Wikipedia entry. She had resisted its creation at the time of its creation. (She has since tried to ensure at least the accuracy of the information contained in the article.)
2. She agrees with your analysis, that the film does not fit the criteria of 'notable'. This is one of the reasons she would like the entry removed. The film never premiered in any international film festivals, nor was it reviewed by any formal judging panel. Rather, it should be considered a 'resource' for those interested in infant psychology.
3. It is the case that the name of the film is closely related to a forthcoming new initiative, by the same name 'connected baby'. But we do not plan to seek an entry in Wikipedia on the project. So there is no conflict there.
If the decision is made to retain the article, then we have a revised entry that we wish to post, which gives a more detailed account of the film's purpose and history.Joni Bendall, Head of Social Media, Suzanne Zeedyk Ltd. (talk) 11:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Joni.Bendall: In anything you suggest, please avoid WP:PROMOTION, but best if you pretty much stay away from editing the article yourself. That Yunshui created the article back in 2011, means that "someone-not-your-employer" thought the topic notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. That your employer may not personally think it notable runs contrary to our notability criteria for films. That she may wish this one deleted because of her plans for a new and similarly named project seems a bit self-serving at this point it time. See WP:NAU. If she indeed has no plans to replace this article, then your original deletion argument above fails. A new article on the new film may well be created by someone else and would then be titled per WP:NCF. But most importantly, as WP:COI strongly discourages anyone with too-close a conection from editing topics with which they have vested interests. IF your employer would like to have the current article modified in some manner, you or she can offer suggestions on the article's talk page and provide the reliable sources, sources independent of the film or filmmaker, that support and confirm and such suggestions. Study WP:V, and WP:RS. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.