Talk:The War on Children
Latest comment: 3 hours ago by Dreamyshade in topic Proposed merge of Robby Starbuck with The War on Children
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully. |
general notability guideline
editIt seems that a film that has that many views and produced that much political heat, by definition, has enough notability for a Wikipedea entry. 24.228.118.92 (talk) 15:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Proposed merge of Robby Starbuck with The War on Children
editThis film has won no awards, hasn't received distribution apart from airing on X, and apart from Musk recommending it seems largely irrelevant. Not notable on its own and should be merged with the Robby Starbuck article. This article also tells readers almost nothing about the actual film, it;s mostly a coatrack of sociopolitical comments by others. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Support merge. Looking at the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (films), I'm not seeing "widely distributed" or "full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics", any major awards, etc. Seems fine to include this material as a subsection in Starbuck's article. Dreamyshade (talk) 04:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Support merge per nom. Biohistorian15 (talk) 11:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose merge. Enough valid content for its own article. A merge would just be a deletion, nothing would b merged over. Got a brief mention of the film in that article already. Enough references show enough media coverage to meet the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 18:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- If there's nothing to merge over then how can there be enough valid content for a standalone article? Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Without casting a !vote one way or the other, I think we should remember that even if something is notable enough for its own article, sometimes it works best as a redirect to an article where it's discussed in a broader context. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- If you read the content in this article, you can see that most of it won't work in the other article. It needs to be on its own. Dream Focus 20:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, no, it looks to me like it would work fine in the other article. It's not so much material that it would be massively disruptive, the first full paragraph is what "the filmmakers" -- i.e., Starbuck -- tried to do and reaction to that. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Agree, I believe this material would make the most sense presented in the context of Starbuck's career and other projects. I looked for additional sources in case there was anything else significant available and already integrated what I was able to find. Could be moved over and slightly condensed. Dreamyshade (talk) 02:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, no, it looks to me like it would work fine in the other article. It's not so much material that it would be massively disruptive, the first full paragraph is what "the filmmakers" -- i.e., Starbuck -- tried to do and reaction to that. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- If you read the content in this article, you can see that most of it won't work in the other article. It needs to be on its own. Dream Focus 20:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)